HOUSE RECORD
Second Year of the 162nd General Court
Calendar and Journal of the 2012 Session
Vol. 34 Concord, N.H. Friday, March 23, 2012 No. 25
Contains: Reports and Amendments for March 28, Legislative Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion 2012-2, House Bills Amended by the Senate, Hearings, Meetings and Notices.
HOUSE CALENDAR
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE:
The House will meet in Session on Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. This week is “Crossover” for the House and Senate. All House Bills to be sent to the Senate must be passed out of the House no later than Thursday, March 29. If the House does not complete action on all House bills by the end of the March 28 session, we will meet at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 29. We will not adjourn on March 29 until work on all House bills is completed.
The Committee on Redress of Grievances has begun to issue its reports and findings with regard to petitions submitted to the Committee. These reports will appear in the House Calendar for informational purposes. No House action is required on those reports.
I have appointed Rep. Don LeBrun to be the Speaker’s liaison to statutory committees. He will follow up with the Chairs of those committees to ensure they meet and file reports in a timely manner.
Please remember that Representatives Hall is not to be used for any purpose, whether legislative or non-legislative, without the express permission of the Speaker.
You are reminded that material is not to be placed in members’ mailboxes in the anteroom behind the Chamber unless and until it has been approved for such distribution by the House Chief of Staff. Also, material is not to be distributed by members in Representatives Hall while the House is in Session.
Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen will meet on Tuesday, March 27 in LOB 305-307 at 9:00 a.m.
William L. O’Brien, Speaker
NOTICE
There will be a Republican Caucus on Wednesday, March 28 at 8:30 a.m. in Representatives Hall.
D.J. Bettencourt, Majority Leader
NOTICE
There will be a Democratic Caucus on Wednesday, March 28 at 8:15 a.m. in Rooms 305-307, LOB.
Terie Norelli, Democratic Leader
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
This day, Wednesday, March 15, 2012, at 5:55 p.m., Representative Susan DeLemus, having voted on the prevailing side, served Notice of Reconsideration on HB 1267, relative to adjustments to the child support guidelines based on child support expenses documented by the parties, which the House found Inexpedient to Legislate, on a voice vote.
Karen O. Wadsworth
Clerk of the House
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
This day, Wednesday, March 15, 2012, at 5:50 p.m., Representative Brandon Giuda, having voted on the prevailing side, served Notice of Reconsideration on HB 1438, relative to confidentiality of police personnel files, which the House found Inexpedient to Legislate, on a division vote of 163-125.
Karen O. Wadsworth
Clerk of the House
NOTICE
The House calendar closes at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesdays for scheduling and notices. It closes at NOON on Thursdays for Committee Reports. Please be sure to do your scheduling in order to meet that deadline.
CLOSES NOON THURSDAY: AVAILABLE FRIDAY:
March 29 March 30
April 5 April 6
Karen O. Wadsworth, Clerk of the House
HOUSE DEADLINES FOR 2012 SESSION
Thursday, March 29, 2012 Last day to act on House bills. CROSSOVER.
Thursday, April 19, 2012 Last day to report SBs going to a second committee
Thursday, April 26, 2012 Last day to act on SBs going to a second committee.
Thursday, May 10, 2012 Last day to report all Senate bills.
Thursday, May 17, 2012 Last day to act on Senate bills.
wednesday, march 28
SPECIAL ORDER TO ON OR AROUND 11:00 a.m.
EDUCATION
CACR 8, relating to education. Providing that the legislature shall have the power to authorize schools. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Michael A Balboni for the Majority of Education: CACR 8 restores the people’s right to local control of education and the authority of the Legislature in education and education funding. In 1968, NH ballots included Question No. 3, a proposed Constitutional amendment which read: “Are you in favor of amending Article 6 of Part I of the Constitution so as to strike out certain specific sectarian references …”. The ballot question included this summary of the original Article 6: “Article 6 authorizes local public taxation for the support of ‘Protestant’ clergymen only, and promises equal protection of the law solely to ‘every denomination of Christians’.” The ballot question provided voters with the following explanation of the effect of the proposed amendment: “If the amendment is adopted, … the above-described sectarian references will be stricken from the state constitution, putting all religious denominations on a basis of equality and removing the present conflict with the U.S. Constitution.” Though the voters were told that only the sectarian references were to be removed, the actual amendment changes went far beyond this. The amendment also removed and altered several non-religious phrases in the Article, and these changes were not explained to the voters. CACR 8 would give the people the opportunity to restore to their Constitution the non-religious aspects that were removed in 1968. These restorations include the following: the purpose of education as being to teach the fundamental principles of the Constitution so that the people are better able to control their government; empowering the legislature to authorize schools, to create and regulate public schools; providing school districts the exclusive control over the selection of their teachers and their compensation; the school districts control over curriculum which is inherent in the original Article’s exclusive control over the selection of teachers; and each school district’s responsibility as the first payers of education expense consistent with the exclusive control over teacher selection and compensation and curriculum selection. CACR 8 then proposes two further changes: it ratifies judicial rulings which enable the state to pay for non-religious education at religious schools; and it clarifies the legislature's power to supplement local funding of public education. The first change makes clearly and permanently constitutional the state's current practices such as funding the non-religious education component for special needs students as required, for example, under federal special ed regulations, and the giving of scholarships to nursing students for the non-religious part of their education at religious schools. The second part ensures that the state funding of education will be consistent with the coordinating Articles of the Constitution of New Hampshire, specifically Part I, Articles 12, 28 and 29 and Part II, Articles 2 and 5 which make the legislature the supreme policy body of the state, and the only body capable of determining state spending. CACR 8 can be summed up as restoring the local control of education and the authority of the legislature in regard to education and education funding; thereby returning the people firmly in control of public education. Vote 12-5.
Rep. June M Frazer for the Minority of Education: This constitutional amendment opens the door to local funding of schools without any supplement from the state. Note the word “may” in the following sentence: “The several political subdivisions … shall make adequate provision at their own expense for their schools, provided that the legislature may supplement that provision in the manner and degree that the legislature finds most beneficial to the general good.” Should a future legislature choose to unfund the public schools, funding them would force already overburdened property taxpayers to pay markedly higher taxes to maintain the quality of their schools. Moreover, CACR 8, in this same language, has already been rejected by the House. The reason why it was recommitted to the education committee was to hold it in case other related bills did not materialize. Since CACR 12 is still in process, passing CACR 8, already rejected once, would be in opposition to the reason it was recommitted.
wednesday, march 28
CONSENT CALENDAR
CHILDREN AND FAMILY LAW
HB 1325, relative to legal residency requirements for purposes of school attendance for children of divorced parents and children whose parents share decision making responsibility pursuant to a parenting plan. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. David S Robbins for Children and Family Law: The committee received this bill as a second committee. The House adopted the recommendation on a voice vote. After a second hearing, the committee voted and recommends Ought to Pass with Amendment. The amendment deletes the phrase, “where parents are awarded joint decision making responsibility.” The committee believes this minor change rightly allows the provision to apply to all parenting plans. Vote 12-0.
COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
HB 1241, relative to table wines. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Chris F Nevins for Commerce and Consumer Affairs: The intent of this bill was to amend RSA 175:1 and RSA 178:8 regarding the definition of “wine table” and the wine manufacturer license. The bill remains basically as submitted but the committee added a minor amendment that removed unnecessary verbiage regarding products that “naturally contains sugar” to “contains sugar.” Vote 13-0.
HB 1402, relative to the sale of homemade food and licensing of certain milk producer-distributors. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Jennifer R. Coffey for Commerce and Consumer Affairs: This bill exempts certain homestead food operations and homestead food products from licensure by the department of health and human services. The committee overwhelmingly approved of this bill which helps small farmers prosper by reducing restrictions on them. The bill was the result of hard work by the Environment and Agriculture Committee as well as the sponsors and various groups involving the department of health and human services. The committee unanimously joins this group in enhancing farming and small enterprise in New Hampshire. Vote 13-0.
HB 1597, relative to taking by eminent domain for certain purposes. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Donna C Mauro for Commerce and Consumer Affairs: This bill grants an owner of real property which was subject to eminent domain, and whose valuation will be impacted if transmission lines are constructed because of eminent domain, the right to be compensated by the owner of the transmission lines for the difference in value. While the committee does not support eminent domain by private entities in general and we were assured in committee that it has rarely been used in the past, this bill would assure fair treatment, and choices of compensation to a residential property owner in case eminent domain is exercised on that property owner. Vote 13-0.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
HB 445-FN, relative to the regulation of electronic tracking devices. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Stephen J Shurtleff for Criminal Justice and Public Safety: This bill would prohibit the use of tracking devices to track an individual without the consent of the individual or a court order. The committee feels that this bill has tremendous merit. Unfortunately, the committee has many unanswered questions. However, the committee felt that a true Interim Study, which should include representatives from the Science and Technology Committee, would produce an excellent piece of legislation. Vote 14-0.
HB 1249, relative to the child protection reporting law. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Philip E Ginsburg for Criminal Justice and Public Safety: The committee felt that, while well intended, this bill is seriously flawed and potentially destructive. This bill would extend the obligation to report suspicions that a child has been abused from health-care professionals, teachers, clergy and other professionals, to any employee, volunteer, or supervisor in an organization with suspicion of anyone else in the organization. A single unfounded suspicion, or a grudge, could lead to a pervasive and destructive atmosphere of suspicion in an organization. In addition, enforcement would be impractical, requiring self-incrimination by a suspect. Reporting requirements, on which the whole bill depends, are erroneous (2 phone calls and a written report) and unreasonable. Vote 16-0.
EDUCATION
HB 1331, relative to the grounds for termination of employment of a school administrative unit or school district employee. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Joseph A Pitre for Education: The committee felt that this bill was not needed and would actually weaken RSA 189:14-d by removing convictions for child pornography and kidnapping as reasons for school employee terminations. Vote 12-0.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION
HB 1260-FN, relative to poker games and charitable gaming. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Kenneth Hawkins for Executive Departments and Administration: The original bill would have removed the $150 limit allowed for poker games and would allow unlimited betting at charitable games. The committee felt if we were going to do that, it should not be under charitable games, but under a casino bill. The committee amended the bill with three separate sections. The 1st section would allow horse racing and simulcast betting at a new facility in Cheshire County. The 2nd section updated what game operators could charge charities for reports required by the charitable gaming commission. The 3rd section outlaws a new attempt to bypass our gambling laws. Companies are advertising on TV and newspapers a place of business where you can play slot machines that award sweepstake prizes. This amendment would make these illegal. The 4th section, from the original bill, allows you have a poker game for money in your home. Under current law you could be fined and go to jail for hosting a poker game in your home. Vote 10-0.
HB 1360, relative to the rulemaking authority of the state board of education. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Peter T Hansen for Executive Departments and Administration: This bill, as passed by the House, expressed the policy that the House and Senate education committees would review and approve the rules of the department of education and the state board of education. ED&A, as a second committee, concentrated on the process of this approval. After testimony from parents, the public, school boards, and the department, the committee decided that augmenting, rather than replacing, the normal rules review process was preferable. In addition, it became apparent that the curriculum frameworks, which are the state’s technical guidelines to the local school boards, have not been approved as rules and the department did not believe the legislature needed to approve them. The committee amendment deletes the separate education committee approval process and instead: (1) requires all education rules to be sent to the policy committee before the public hearing on the initial proposed rules (2) requires the curriculum frameworks and technical advisories be approved as rules, except for the style and formatting requirements which are not appropriate here (3) requires the department to notify the policy committees when it starts to consider a new or updated rule and (4) updates the membership and duties of the existing legislative oversight committee to better reflect its policy oversight. The policy committee review of all existing rules was retained. Vote 12-1.
HB 1435, establishing a committee to oversee the department of environmental services. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Peter T Hansen for Executive Departments and Administration: This bill, as amended, establishes a liaison committee to monitor the department of environmental services. The liaison committee will consist of 12 members, the chairperson, vice-chairperson and ranking minority member of the Senate energy and natural resources committee and 9 members of the House who shall be the chairperson, vice-chairperson and ranking minority member of resources, recreation, and development committee, the environmental and agriculture committee and the science and technology committee. The liaison committee will monitor the department to support an effective, efficient, and coordinated system of environmental services and meet no less than once every 3 months, or more frequently at the call of the chair. The liaison committee will fulfill the obligations as specified in the bill and file a report as required within the time specified. The committee amendment retitles the committee from oversight to liaison, slightly modifies the committee responsibilities, adds a sunset date and corrects the effective date to January 1, 2013 Vote 12-2.
HB 1436, establishing a committee to oversee the management of natural resources by the department of resources and economic development. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Steven J Winter for Executive Departments and Administration: This bill was originally assigned to the Resources, Recreation and Development Committee, its first policy committee. After passage by the House, it was sent to the Executive Departments and Administration Committee as a second committee. The original committee presented ED&A with an amendment to the bill, changing its purpose from “a committee to oversee the management of natural resources by the department of resources and economic development” to “a liaison committee on resources and economic development.” The purpose of the bill is to “provide for communication and coordination between the legislature and the department of resources and economic development in order to best serve citizens, businesses, and visitors to promote effective management of the state’s reservations.” The amendment proposed to us by the original committee slightly expanded the membership from the bill as introduced. The ED&A Committee pared down the size of the liaison committee from nine to seven members. We also reduced the quorum required from five to four and clarified the effective dates. Vote 13-1.
HB 1476, prohibiting the enforcement of out-of-state laws, rules, codes, and fess not approved by the New Hampshire legislature. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Calvin D Pratt for Executive Departments and Administration: The language of this bill is a reiteration of Section 1, Article 28 of the New Hampshire constitution. The hearings and subcommittee meetings revealed that the legislature has specifically authorized a number of interstate compacts, creating an apparent conflict. A related bill, HB1475, on interstate compacts, will incorporate the intent of HB1476 while resolving the issues of the compacts, making this bill unnecessary. Vote 13-0.
HB 1508, relative to procedures of the board of mental health practice. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Spec Bowers for Executive Departments and Administration: This bill, as amended, makes various changes to the regulation of mental health practitioners. It includes technical changes such as clarifying educational requirements, establishing fees for late license renewal, and requiring that allegations of misconduct be signed by the accuser. More significantly, it requires that the board, after investigating any complaint of misconduct, must disclose to a practitioner a summary of the investigation, including an overview of the evidence, and specifically including any exculpatory evidence. Another important part of the bill protects the privacy of patient records, especially records of third-party patients, i.e. patients who were not part of a charge of misconduct by a practitioner but whose name came up during the investigation of a practitioner. This sets in statute the replacement of the rules the Legislature objected to with last year’s HJR3. The amendment replaces the original bill. Vote 13-0.
FINANCE
HB 234-FN-A, relative to food service licensure and establishing a committee to study the regulation of food service establishments. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. William S Belvin for Finance: This bill originated in the Commerce Committee, passed the House and came to Finance as a second committee. The bill, as requested by health and human services, brings New Hampshire law into alignment with federal food and food processing law. The amendment saves cost by resolving a duplication of regulatory authority between health and human services and the department of agriculture. The department of agriculture will have clear authority for its voluntary regulation of small food processing for maple products, honey, apple cider and other small scale baked goods. Vote 24-0.
HB 604, relative to the procedures for approval of plans, specifications, and costs of school building construction or renovation. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Karen C Umberger for Finance: The committee incorporated the requirements for approval of plans, specifications and costs enumerated in HB 604 into HB 533. Therefore this bill is unnecessary. Vote 24-0.
HB 1521-FN, relative to retired state employees group insurance participation. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Lynne M Ober for Finance: This bill resulted from a department of administrative services performance audit, which cited ten observations. The final three citations required legislation and were incorporated into this bill. When administration of the retiree health benefit program was transferred from the New Hampshire Retirement System [NHRS] to the department of administrative services, the department continued the practices that were put in place by the NHRS, but the audit discovered that a number of these practices were not specifically authorized to DAS by statute. This bill sets out authorization for these ongoing practices in a revision to RSA 21-I:30 and re-writes that statute in a more logical format. Under this bill retirees with disabled children will be able to purchase health coverage from the state. Retired employees who are eligible for Medicare may voluntarily cease participation in plan benefits at any time and may reenroll without restriction, which allows retirees who work again, to take medical benefits from their current employer, but remain eligible for start benefits that would be provided to all state retirees. Retirees who are not eligible for Medicare may voluntarily cease participation in plan benefits at any time. If an unmarried retiree marries after retirement, the benefit plan shall be extended to the new spouse and if a retiree divorces, COBRA coverage will be offered to the divorced spouse, per federal law, but the ex-spouse may no longer participate in the retiree’s benefit plan. Vote 24-0.
LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATION
HB 1361, relative to fiscal notes on bills. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. J. Michael Ball for Legislative Administration: This is a simple housekeeping issue that clarifies the language which is permissible on a fiscal note to a bill. This is in keeping with our duty to act as good stewards of the taxpayers’ hard earned dollar. Vote 9-0.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY
HB 1390, relative to the regulation of incumbent local exchange carriers. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Nickolas J Levasseur for Science, Technology and Energy: This bill was intended as a placeholder bill pending the Senate’s disposition of SB 48, a comprehensive deregulation of New Hampshire’s telecommunications industry. With SB 48 now in the committee’s possession and with the reporting deadline approaching, the committee no longer felt it necessary to retain HB1390 as a vehicle. As SB 48 is a far more effective piece of legislation the committee recommends ITL. Vote 14-0.
HB 1428, relative to public utilities commission orders concerning renewable portfolio standards. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Sam A Cataldo for Science, Technology and Energy: This bill would have made changes in New Hampshire’s electric renewable portfolio standard (RPS) law. Since the Senate just passed a comprehensive RPS bill (SB218), which will be coming to the House, the committee felt that this bill (HB1429) is not needed. The committee will spend its time on the Senate bill. Vote 13-1.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28
REGULAR CALENDAR
COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
HB 1560, relative to the interstate Health Care Compact. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Chris F Nevins for the Majority of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: A compact is an agreement of two or more states and according to Article One of the US Constitution; no state shall, without the consent of Congress,...enter into any agreement or compact with another state. A healthcare compact moves the responsibilities and authority for regulating healthcare from the federal government to the states. Medicare has an unfunded liability of between $38-43 trillion, and we should take a long look at any program that would potentially shift NH's portion of that burden to state taxpayers. The committee was also concerned that there will be an unknown cost to join the compact and, even more importantly, what health insurance it will actually cover: Medicare, Medicaid, or individuals and employer based group insurance? The legislation, however, does allow New Hampshire to join after the commission has been enacted by congress and formed. After hearing much testimony about pros and cons on health care compacts, the committee concurs with the sponsor, that further study with a study committee would be appropriate. The committee is directed to report by Nov.1. Vote 11-2.
Rep. Andrew J Manuse for the Minority of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: This bill was sent to Commerce as a second committee. The minority of Commerce agrees with the statement: “This compact recognizes that New Hampshire’s health care needs are best solved by those here in New Hampshire, and not by Washington DC regulators trying to force all 50 states into the same one-size-fits-all solution.” The minority also thinks that the Commerce Committee has not articulated sufficient rationale to study the idea of a Health Care Compact further. A compact is a constitutionally permitted contract among two or more states that must be ratified by Congress to take effect, according to Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Due to the legal nature of a compact, the Commerce Committee or a study committee cannot recommend amended language for HB 1560 or the compact can not legally take effect. Practically speaking, the study committee is just an option to talk more about the idea of a compact and then make a recommendation whether to pass this bill in the exact same form that you see it in today. Such a conversation is unneeded and wasteful of valuable state resources for one very clear reason: Even if we do pass this compact, and even if two or more other states pass this compact in the exact same form, and even if Congress passes this compact in the exact same form, the only thing that will come from it is that the New Hampshire Legislature will have been legally granted permission to write statutory laws and executive rules regarding health care that do not comply with federal law. Even if the health care compact is ratified, there will be no other change to the way New Hampshire citizens are treated under the law. Only if a future Legislature decides to make changes to our law will there be any change, but at that point, such changes will be permitted and the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution will not apply. Whether the New Hampshire Legislature decides to write such laws is completely up to a future Legislature, and a future Legislature may decide to do nothing. Ultimately, with the compact in place, the New Hampshire Legislature will have power granted by Congress to develop more efficient and effective policies to regulate health care within the State of New Hampshire, notwithstanding federal law. The minority of this committee thinks that the federal government has done an abysmal job regulating health care and thinks the New Hampshire Legislature could do a better job—perhaps even by letting the free market do most of the regulating itself.
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW AND STATUTORY RECODIFICATION
HB 1227, relative to disqualification of certain members of the general court. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Seth Cohn for Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification: This committee heard a number of bills this year on the topic of who should be disqualified from running or serving in the House and when. Having rejected other bills as clearly unconstitutional, we felt this bill was a good vehicle for the discussion of the issues raised regarding advocacy, lobbying, compensation, conflicts of interest, ethical guidelines, qualifications for office, and all of the related constitutional issues, and what is the best solution, still to be determined, if any is needed. With the committee unsure if that potential answer should be via house rules, constitutional amendment, statute, or ethical guidelines, more time and discussion is needed, and hopefully an interim study will allow the best legislative effort to return next year. Vote 11-5.
HB 1350, relative to the style and form of new articles and amendments to articles proposed by constitutional amendment concurrent resolutions. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Seth Cohn for Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification: This bill is concerned with matching the style and format of the New Hampshire Constitution as it was originally. By ensuring that capitalization remains intact on certain key words that the titles which may limit the interpretation are not enshrined in the constitution proper, we can help preserve the integrity of the legacy of our founders, and the foundation of laws by which we, the People, have formed this government. The secretary of state is in agreement with this intent. Vote 11-5.
HB 1395, revoking amendments to supreme court rules 50 and 50-A. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Daniel C Itse for the Majority of Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification: This bill reverses the changes to Supreme Court rules 50 and 50-A made in 2010. Attorneys often put client payments into a common escrow account. Previously, the supreme court determined it was unethical for those attorneys to retain the interest from these accounts because the interest was properly the property of the clients; and therefore, required the interest turned over to the Supreme Court to be given to the bar association to be then given to legal aid. The bar association receives 10% for administration of the program. However, attorneys had the power to put the money into non-interest bearing accounts to avoid this conundrum. Currently, the state budget supports legal aid through the judicial budget. When the state contribution was cut, the supreme court changed the rules such that it became mandatory to put the escrow money into interest bearing accounts. The taking of this interest income for a public purpose amounts to taxation of 100%. The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 28 prohibits taxation “under any pretext whatsoever” by any body other than the people or the Legislature, making this action patently unconstitutional. Since neither the attorneys nor their clients have any direct power in the selection of the supreme court justices - this is taxation without representation - one of the chief causes of the Revolutionary War. Furthermore, since this is a “charitable” program, and quite possibly not all of the clients want their money to be given to this charity, this is also forced association violating the Constitution of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 4, which recognizes the rights of conscience. The Constitution of New Hampshire Part 2, Article 73 authorizes the supreme court to make rules for “the administration of the courts, in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts.” This disposition of interest on escrow accounts is not an act that occurs in the courts. Vote 10-5.
Rep. Gary B Richardson for the Minority of Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification: This bill seeks to revoke rules issued by the Supreme Court relating to interest on a lawyer’s escrow account containing funds received on behalf of clients for short periods of time. The interest on these accounts is not traceable to a particular client because the funds are only held for very short periods of time in a commingled account on behalf of multiple clients. (Any client funds that are held in an individual account are the property of the client and must be segregated for the benefit of the client who is entitled to the funds.) The interest that is earned on these commingled accounts is paid to a public foundation and used to provide legal services for the poor and other public services related to the practices of law. The majority argues that it is a violation of an attorney’s constitutional rights to be compelled to contribute money for legal services for the poor. The minority believes that since this money does not belong to the lawyer if any constitutional rights are involved they are the constitutional rights of the clients, not the lawyer. The minority also notes that pursuant to Part II, Article 73-a of the constitution, the Supreme Court has authority to adopt rules relating to “the practice and procedure to be followed” in the courts, which includes the practice of law. If the majority has problems with Article 73-a, the remedy is through constitutional amendment rather than crippling a program providing legal service for the poor without providing state funding to make up for the loss of revenue. Seeking to over-turn Supreme Court rules by statute is a violation of Part I, Article 37.
HB 1475, relative to enforcement of interstate compacts. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Joshua C Davenport for Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification: The text of this bill reads "Enforcement of Interstate Compacts. No state official shall enforce any provision of an interstate compact which is based on another state's law or rule which has not been specifically approved by the New Hampshire legislature." While the bill has simple language, interstate compacts have significant subtleties. The committee didn't feel it had the time to disentangle all the variables, and so voted for interim study. In particular, carefully defining "specifically approved" may be required to avoid ambiguities that could undermine the intent of the bill. See "Drivers License Compact" for an example. Vote 11-2.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
HB 1659-FN, relative to the women's right to know act regarding abortion information. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Jason P Antosz for the Majority of Criminal Justice and Public Safety: The bill would allow women to know the complete and accurate information on abortions and its alternatives. The amendment removes the criminal penalty contained in the regular bill. Vote 8-7.
Rep. Stephen J Shurtleff for the Minority of Criminal Justice and Public Safety: The minority remains deeply concerned that this legislation represents government overreach into the practice of medicine. It will compromise the quality of care for women seeking reproductive health services and literally put government into the exam room between a woman and her doctor. Instead of offering individualized counseling and advice tailored to each patient, this legislation will force medical providers to read from a script with biased information. It is simply not the role of the state to be forcing women to watch a government-created video and forcing medical providers to show ultrasound images and give medically unsound information. While we recognize that the efforts of the majority to adjust the criminal penalties take a small step to remedy one of the many problems with the bill, it is still a fundamentally bad public policy which we believe should be defeated.
EDUCATION
HB 1403, allowing a parent or guardian to withdraw a child from a school district which adopts the international baccalaureate program. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Ralph G Boehm for the Majority of Education: This bill as originally presented would allow parents to move their children to schools not utilizing the International Baccalaureate method of instruction. This is not feasible because it would be impossible to accommodate those students, as in most instances there would be no place to send these children, and it is still the responsibility of the resident district to pay for their education. The committee amendment states that school programs cannot be governed by a foreign body or organization. Proof of governance might be shown in any of several ways, including, but not limited to: authorization to use a specific name in promotion of the school (for example "world school") or being subject to inspections or visits to ensure compliance with programs, rules or policies of the foreign body or organization or the determination that any arbitration of disputes relating to the implementation of any program take place outside of the state of New Hampshire, or be settled by or be in accordance with, non-state or non-U.S. law. We have tried to give as much autonomy as possible to the local school district over the state department of education, however we should not allow school districts to give away that autonomy to a foreign government. The amendment also creates a committee to study the IB program and determine whether or not it is in the best interests of the state. The Committee will look at security concerning student information being sent out of state or country, whether or not sending money to this organization is against federal law, as the IB organization appears to be funded by UNESCO, what to do with existing IB school districts and any other issue that may come up. Vote 9-4.
Rep. Mary Stuart Gile for the Minority of Education: HB 1403 as amended includes two sections: Section I states that a public school or public academy shall be deemed to meet school approval standards only if the curriculum and instruction of the school or academy promotes state and national sovereignty and is not subject to the governance of a foreign body or organization. Section 1 also describes what is expected as proof of governance. Section II establishes a committee to study issues related to the implementation of the International Baccalaureate (IB) program in the State of New Hampshire. The minority supports the formation of the study committee (Section 2) to research the IB program, originating in Switzerland and singled out by the U.S. Military as a rigorous academic program for children of U.S. service personnel assigned to bases around the world. Issues to be studied include governance, personal and information security, arbitration of disputes and effects of IB programs already implemented in New Hampshire. The minority is opposed to Section I of HB 1403 as amended, which if implemented would supersede every decision made by local school districts in their choice of curriculum and instructional methodology. As stated, it could also impose sweeping changes to New Hampshire school districts who may have already adopted education programs and methods from other states and countries (e.g. Montessori, Reggio Emilia-Italy; Waldorf-Germany; Khan Academy-India; Early Literacy-Australia). Enforceability of Section I would be complicated and intrusive. Perhaps the most damaging effects of Section I would be to limit educational opportunities for New Hampshire students. This is, after all the 21st century, and our students are the next generation of global citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that they are prepared and have access to the best educational practices and programs.
ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURE
HB 1726, exempting the transport of certain electronic waste and universal waste from the hazardous waste transporter registration program. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Tara A Sad for the Majority of Environment and Agriculture: This bill resulted from a miscommunication between the department of environmental services and one municipal agent and would have inserted wording exempting e-waste and universal waste from municipal transporting permit requirements into statute. The exemption already exists in DES rules. A bill passed by this House earlier this year will provide legislative review and oversight of DES statutes and rules. Adding the proposed wording to statute would result in inconsistencies and unnecessary confusion. Therefore the majority thought this bill was unnecessary. Vote 8-5.
Rep. David L Babson for the Minority of Environment and Agriculture: The minority of the committee felt that because of the confusion created by the volume of the department of environmental services (DES) rules that it would be wise to put the contents of the bill in law so that there is no question that a municipality does not need a hazardous waste transporter permit to move E-waste.
FINANCE
HB 533-FN-L, establishing a cap on the amount of school building aid grants distributed in each fiscal year. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Karen C Umberger for the Majority of Finance: This bill changes the methodology for funding school building aid, adds a requirement to submit the least costly plan that meets state building standards, adds to the currently required maintenance plan a requirement for a 20 year maintenance plan and identifies the criteria the department of education will use to rank building construction proposals. Building aid will change from funding over the life of the bond to a one time upfront grant. The bill continues to fund those projects approved prior to July 1, 2012 throughout the life of the bond. Since HB 533 as passed by the House indicated school building aid shall not exceed $50 million per fiscal year and past school building aid will be paid, the amount of dollars for school building aid may not fully fund the grant to a school district. As a result, a school district may decline a full or partial grant. If that occurs the grant will be made to the next ranked school district. Vote 22-2.
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt for the Minority of Finance: The minority is convinced that, as unlikely as it might seem, this bill does both “too little and too much.” Some argue that the state is obligated to fund school building aid; indeed, that if a school building aid program had not been in place at the time of the Claremont decision, then the court would have ordered that such aid be a part of any school funding formula. While the minority challenges that assertion, we would note that if you accept it, the money in this bill is hardly sufficient to accomplish the task. After all, it provides $43 million to fund projects already approved and only $7 million in new monies. In that case, this bill does too little. However, it also does too much in that it ties the hands of future legislatures to provide monies for school building aid when in fact no state aid is provided, as was noted in testimony, for such vital services as police or fire buildings. The minority also has a problem with the new funding scheme in this bill. By stipulating that new projects be funded in full rather than proportionally, other equally important projects will be less likely to receive any funding.
HB 1274-FN, transferring the McAuliffe-Shepard discovery center to a private operator and making a supplemental appropriation therefor. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. William B Smith for Finance: This bill converts the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center from a state agency to an independent nonprofit at the end of 2012. The majority supports the plan, whereby the state will provide the current building and existing equipment rent-free, retaining ownership and responsibility for debt service and major building maintenance. It will also provide transition costs in 2012, transferring supplies and center funds to the new entity at year end. A board for the entity will be established and submit an operations business plan to the general court fiscal committee for approval by November. To enable the successful transfer, a supplemental appropriation of $385,740 is required in FY 2013, with a net savings expected in FY 2014 and beyond. Vote 21-3.
HB 1285-FN, repealing the state art fund. MAJORITY: REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. William S Belvin for the Majority of Finance: This bill originated in ED&A, passed the House and came to the House finance committee for second committee review. The bill would repeal the existing state art fund. House finance deals with the financial aspects of the bill and recommends Interim Study for financial reasons. At present, there are over 600 individual works of art and historic items the state has bought and paid for, constituting a valuable state asset in need of curating, maintenance, and as needed, repair. These necessary functions currently receive funds that are to be abolished, leaving it up to the division of cultural resources to seek new funding in future state budgets, for those responsibilities and to maintain the value of the collection. Once HB 1285 becomes law there would be no art spending cap as now exists; and the current prohibition of using funds from building repairs, transportation, fish and game, university system of New Hampshire and federal money for the calculation of art fund revenue would be eliminated, opening the general fund to unknown future art expenditures. It is because of these financial concerns, and with the intent of resolving these concerns, to include alternate funding sources other than as a percent of capital budget projects in HB 25, that the house finance committee recommends Interim Study. Vote 15-9.
Rep. Dan McGuire for the Minority of Finance: When HB 1285 was passed by the House 214-108, the policy was set that art should not be purchased on autopilot. Rather, it should be funded it through the normal budget process as was done for nearly 200 years. This bill has very little to do with art and everything to do with legislators taking responsibility for state expenditures. As the member from public works testified, that committee would budget art for each new building project as needed on a case-by-case basis. There are no complex issues here that need more study. The proposed amendment simply deletes the automatic spending, continues the fund until ongoing projects are completed, and maintains the system used by the department of cultural affairs to purchase art when monies are allocated.
HB 1552-FN, relative to the reporting of funds. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Charles E Sova for Finance: This bill expends the number of dedicated funds to be reported by state agencies and calls for frequent publications of those reports in a consolidated biennial report. It has little or no cost associated with it. Vote 23-0.
HB 1652-FN-A, requiring the transfer of insurance premium tax revenue to the revenue stabilization reserve account. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Kenneth L Weyler for the Majority of Finance: Bond agencies set interest rates by formulas which look at a government’s management, stability, and financial practices. High ratings result in lower interest rates, which save millions in borrowing costs. Revenue stabilization accounts are an important tool in cash management. These are usually referred to as “rainy day funds.” During the FY 2012-2013 operating budget process, the rainy day Fund was estimated to be depleted to less than $1 million to balance the FY 2011 budget. When we accepted ARRA funds and stimulus funds, one criteria was that none of these dollars could be put in the rainy day fund. With the commingling of most state general fund dollars, it would be difficult to argue that no stimulus funds were so used. Here was an opportunity, when clearly defined surplus funds were identified at the close of FY 2011 in the state’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in the amount of $17.7 Million. In one action, we could deposit an amount equal to the unanticipated FY 2011 surplus into the rainy day fund, by transferring said amount from FY 2012 insurance premium tax revenue (a revenue source unrelated to stimulus funds and deposited entirely into the state general fund). Since we are transferring FY 2012 revenue, we cannot be accused of depositing FY 2011 stimulus funds into the rainy day fund, and will send a message to bond agencies that we are working toward raising our rainy day fund balance to our goal of $125 million, which represents approximately 5% of state general fund expenditures. Vote 20-6.
Rep. Robert A Foose for the Minority of Finance: The minority is very concerned about a decision to place resources in the rainy day fund when the financial condition of the state is still uncertain. The committee heard questions from members of the majority that suggested that there is concern that future actions could create additional pressure on the budget. Further, in view of the fact that the first year of the biennial budget was not balanced at the time that it was approved in June 2012, the minority suggests that there is strong evidence that it is too early in the biennial process to add to the revenue stabilization fund.
HB 1658-FN, limiting financial assistance for mothers who have additional children while receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Thomas E Keane for the Majority of Finance: This bill as amended by committee expands and improves existing fraud-detection procedures in the Medicaid and welfare programs. The objective is to more comprehensively identify and disqualify applicants and recipients who are defrauding the state. The bill as amended requires the department of health and human services to seek bids and implement a system that uses additional readily available public- and private-sector data bases to verify residential and financial eligibility for state-funded services. The committee heard testimony that similar systems in other states had resulted in substantial savings by eliminating fraudulently obtained services. In Pennsylvania, the savings were estimated at over $300 million. Given the size of New Hampshire Medicaid and welfare program and the state’s current fraud-avoidance measures, it is not expected that the state will save hundreds of millions, but it may save millions of dollars. The bill as amended also provides for the payment of a final court judgment of $3.9 million total funds ($2.6 million general funds) against the state in the so-called Chase Homes case. The first $2,600,000 of general fund savings through the expanded fraud detection and elimination system are set aside for this legal obligation. The committee removed the so-called “family cap” on cash welfare payments contained in the bill as introduced, and it declined to include a freeze on the amount of cash welfare payments at the amount first received by a recipient. Both measures would likely have resulted in unintended, punitive consequences. Vote 20-6.
Rep. Cindy Rosenwald for the Minority of Finance: The amendment, which replaces the entire bill, includes a complex policy change that was never reviewed by a policy committee and was only brought to the Finance Committee the morning of the executive session. There has, therefore, been no investigation of the complicated policy change’s impact on the program, beneficiaries, or department staff resources. A number of problems with the proposed policy were identified at the hearing. First, the proposed new electronic identity and income verification system program would duplicate the state’s current process that is required under federal law. The department of health and human services already successfully cross-checks government databases to determine eligibility. Furthermore, even though the current procedure is extremely time-consuming, requiring up to two hours to validate each discrepancy report, the majority amendment adds no staff to handle the increased workload that would result from a data mining report of electronic discrepancy “hits.” Third, beyond being duplicative and labor-intensive, the information provided by electronic databases is less up-to-date than the information the department currently collects and, according to department testimony, also less reliable. Since the department clearly does not have either the staff or technical infrastructure to implement the proposed electronic program, the state would have no choice but to contract with a private, commercial vendor. This vendor has a system that data mines various national databases to indicate areas that need further investigation, not definite attempts at fraud. However, because no fiscal note was developed, and the department was not asked to determine fiscal impact, the Finance Committee was asked to approve a potentially expensive new program with absolutely no idea of the cost or any potential savings. The minority, believing such a cavalier approach to governing is irresponsible, recommends ITL for this unnecessary, unreliable information program.
HB 1692-FN, making changes to the administration of the university system of New Hampshire. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. William B Smith for the Majority of Finance: The majority was not convinced that the original bill, which eliminated the office of chancellor of the university system of New Hampshire, would achieve its intended cost reductions without financial harm. The bill was amended to require a reduction of $2.4 million/year from university administration, and assigned these funds to reducing the cost of in-state student tuition, starting with the 2014 academic year. It also requires an annual trustee report on efforts to reduce costs of the university system office, as well as on progress on a number of specific areas to improve efficiency and effectiveness of state universities and colleges in preparing New Hampshire residents for employment at all levels and fields. Vote 14-10.
Rep. Timothy L Twombly for the Minority of Finance: The minority believes that the adopted amendment significantly improves the original bill by maintaining the chancellor office. However we disagree with the majority that an additional $2.4 million dollar cut to their budget is warranted at this time, even with the intent that this savings go toward lowering tuition costs. The last budget cut the university system appropriation by almost 50% ($48 million). No other state agency endured such a budget cut. The administration is currently making excellent progress in improved efficiency. This is not the time to cut the university budget further or to micro-manage their work.
HB 1727-FN, to return certain insurance exchange moneys to the federal government. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Neal M Kurk for the Majority of Finance: This bill requires the insurance commissioner to return, by not drawing down, the remaining $333,000 of a $1,000,000 federal government award to the state for planning a state health insurance exchange under the federal affordable care act (ACA). The other $667,000 of the grant has already been refused by the state. The committee is concerned that acceptance of any part of the grant may bring with it obligations to participate in a program that would greatly increase state general fund expenditures. The committee would note that challenges to the constitutionality of the ACA are currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. For these reasons, the committee believes that the remainder of the grant should not be accepted. Vote 19-4.
Rep. Robert A Foose for the Minority of Finance: The minority believes that it is imprudent to turn our back on the reality that the affordable care act creates an insurance exchange in each state. In support of the need for exchanges, the federal government has offered to fund the planning required to develop a New Hampshire exchange that would meet the unique needs of our state. Since the funding comes with no strings attached, it is hard to understand the majority's support of HB 1727.
HEALTH, HUMAN SERVICES AND ELDERLY AFFAIRS
HB 1680-FN, requiring the department of health and human services to compile and maintain induced termination of pregnancy statistics. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Alida I Millham for Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs: A subcommittee worked on HB 1680 in order to identify an appropriate way to collect meaningful data about the number of abortions that are done in New Hampshire. It became apparent that data collection involved negotiating with two different departments and acquiring a fiscal note. The subcommittee amended the bill to request that the Health and Human Service Oversight Committee create a subcommittee to better address these issues and report back their findings. It is the intent of the Health and Human Service and Elderly Affairs committee that this work commence during the 2012 session. Vote 14-3.
JUDICIARY
HB 1653-FN, relative to the rights of conscience for medical professionals. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Kathleen F Souza for the Majority of Judiciary: This bill will provide needed statutory protection for healthcare professionals' freedom of conscience. The Constitution of New Hampshire is clear: "Among the natural rights, some are in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of the Conscience." Nurses in some states have been told to assist in abortion or lose their jobs. Pharmacists in New Hampshire have been told they must take part in dispensing abortafacient drugs. Federally, doctors are being pressured to refer for procedures that violate their religious or conscientious beliefs. In addition, there is a growing list of ethical situations where the conscience rights of workers need to be safeguarded, be it in the fields of assisted suicide, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell work.
Currently, only three states, including New Hampshire fail to provide statutory protection of this "unalienable right" of conscience. This bill will fill that void. Vote 12-5.
Rep. Rick H Watrous for the Minority of Judiciary: This bill prohibits civil, criminal or job-related action against any health care provider who objects to participating in any way in a health care service. The bill defines “health care service” as “any phase of patient medical care or treatment, including, but not limited to, the following: patient referrals, patient counseling, patient testing, patient diagnosis or prognosis, research, instruction, the prescription or administration of any device, drug or medication, or any combination of drugs or medications, performing surgery, or providing any other care or treatment rendered by health care providers or health care institutions, intended for the patient’s physical, emotional, or mental well-being.” There is no exception for emergency or life saving treatment. Pharmacists, nurses, doctors, clinic workers, hospital employees and a host of others would be able to deny services and medications, without warning, to customers and patients. Not only does this bill ignore the needs and rights of patients, it is also anti-employer. It would be unlawful for any employer, as well as any patient, to take action against any health care worker who refuses to participate in any way in a health care service that they find objectionable. But patients have the right to expect to receive medical treatment or care. Employers should have the right to expect employees to perform the work for which they were hired. HB 1653 is anti-patient and anti-business and would inject chaos and uncertainty into New Hampshire health care.
HB 1660-FN, relative to abortions after 20 weeks. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Kathleen F Souza for Judiciary: This bill addresses a growing concern regarding the susceptibility of the unborn child to feel pain. Evidence is mounting that, indeed, by twenty weeks gestation, the unborn child is fully capable of experiencing pain. Medical and scientific literature is replete with reports attesting to this. Testimony from the fields of obstetrics, neurology, and perinatoglogy has been presented in scientific journals and before the United States Congress. One noted neurologist states that “unborn children at 20 weeks gestation probably feel pain more intensely than adults.” Although some may doubt these scientific findings, the majority of the committee feels that the right thing to do is to act with compassion for these unborn children and thus voted this bill Ought to Pass. Vote 12-4.
Rep. Lucy M. Weber for the Minority of Judiciary: The minority believes this bill, titled the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” to be flawed for many reasons. First, the minority is unpersuaded that there has actually been a scientific determination that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks after fertilization, or what the medical community, which counts from the date of the last menstrual period, refers to as the 22nd week of pregnancy. We were given testimony that neurons, or pain fibers, do not even reach the brain’s cortex until the 26th week of pregnancy, and it has not been proven that pain as we know it is experienced then, either. Second, this bill would constitute state intrusion into the established right of a woman to make her own decisions governing her own body, in consultation with her chosen medical care providers. Third, this bill would intrude the state into the practice of medicine, and would require physicians to depart from accepted standards of medical practice. Fourth, the bill increases bureaucracy by requiring an extensive and problematical reporting system. A more acceptable reporting system is currently being explored by another committee. Finally, portions of the bill, as for example, the section on abortions necessary to preserve the life of the fetus, are a contradiction in terms and make no sense.
HB 1725-FN, prohibiting health care practitioner self-referrals for medical devices. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Joseph M. Hagan for Judiciary: This would prohibit physicians and other healthcare practitioners (HCP) from referring, ordering or arranging medical devices to patients under their care if such device is supplied by an entity in which the physician or HCP has a substantial financial interest, as defined in RSA 125:25-a. While this practice is not taking place in New Hampshire today, it is heading our way. While cogent arguments were made that this bill could limit competition and halt innovation, the potential for abuse and the obvious conflict of interest could result in patient injury. This latter concern mandates passing this legislation without delay. Vote 12-4.
LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATION
HB 1623, relative to records of the legislative ethics committee. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. J. Michael Ball for Legislative Administration: This is a minor language change as part of our effort to make state government more transparent and accessible for our citizens. Vote 11-0.
MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT
HB 1634, establishing a committee to study the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 into the state, counties, regional commissions, towns, and cities. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Betsey L Patten for Municipal and County Government: A study committee is proposed in HB 1634 to investigate United Nations Agenda 21 and its possible effect on the private property rights of New Hampshire landowners. The due date for the report is November 1, 2012. During testimony on this bill the committee heard that here is a large volume of information to read and digest. The chairman explained the process and time line for a study committee. The bill would need to go to the Senate, be heard and voted on, and if passed onto the governor. A mid-July date to start studying the issue is a distinct possibility. The majority of the committee felt it was insufficient time to produce a viable report. An option was discussed that would have some committee members and sponsors working together to create an amendment that could be attached to an upcoming Senate bill. The possible amendment would try to achieve a desirable result consisted with the New Hampshire Constitution regarding private property rights. Vote 12-2.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY
HB 1238, relative to divestiture of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) generation assets. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. James M Garrity for Science, Technology and Energy: This bill as amended instructs the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to open a docket this year to fully investigate whether or not the divestiture or retirement of any or all of PSNH (Public Service of New Hampshire) generating plants would be in the economic interest of PSNH default service ratepayers. If, after the conclusion of what we anticipate will be a long and exhaustive analysis, the PUC finds that is in the economic interest of PSNH default service customers for one or more power plants to be sold or retired, only then would PSNH be required to file a plan with the PUC to sell such plants. The PUC would oversee such sale and manage the allocation of sale costs and proceeds for the benefit of PSNH ratepayers. The driving factor here is the economic interest of ratepayers. The divestiture question has not been seriously evaluated for over a decade. During that time energy markets, natural resource availability, environmental regulations and competitive factors have changed dramatically. PSNH insists the current model works fine and change is not needed. PSNH competitors insist that divestiture will result in more robust competition and lower end-user rates. All parties have multi-millions of dollars at stake in this fight and have spent considerable resources in lobbying for their cause. The committee feels that this issue is best handled if it is evaluated at the PUC, where all parties can present the facts, economics and arguments in a structured quasi-judicial process relatively free from political pressure. This bill as amended also makes some clarifying improvements to current electric utility cost allocation laws, to prevent shifting of electricity generation costs to electricity distribution customers. In addition, it clarifies that PSNH must serve its default customers through the most cost effective mix of its own power generation and market power purchases to the benefit of its ratepayers. Finally, it adds a duty to the Electric Restructuring Oversight Committee instructing it to work with the PUC to study the divestiture issue and its rate impacts. Vote 12-2.
HB 1490-FN, repealing New Hampshire's regional greenhouse gas initiative cap and trade program for controlling carbon dioxide emissions. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. James M Garrity for the Majority of Science, Technology and Energy: This bill reforms how New Hampshire participates in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). It is based on the current political reality that New Hampshire will probably not be able to leave the RGGI program in 2012. Realizing that, this bill aims to reduce the negative direct financial impact of RGGI on electric ratepayers, especially PSNH default service ratepayers. It does so in the following ways: First, in the belief that RGGI should be all about the environment and not all about the money, it lowers the annual emissions cap by 2.5% two years earlier than the other RGGI states planned reductions. It grants emission allowances to the 5 RGGI regulated power plants at no cost, up to the point where they reach their emission caps. Since they are allowances, the plants should be “allowed” to emit up to the cap at no cost. This change will result in an immediate reduction of costs for PSNH default service ratepayers of between $5,000,000 - $12,000,000 per year. Any emissions over the cap would require the plants to purchase allowances at auction as they do now. Second, it still allows the state to sell the remaining 215,512 allowances at the RGGI auctions and use the proceeds as they are currently used. Third, it repeals New Hampshire’s RGGI participation on January 1, 2015, which is the beginning of the next three year compliance period. Meanwhile, New Hampshire remains in the RGGI program using this cost reduction approach. Critics of this reform dislike it because they claim that it will reduce the amount of money in the greenhouse gas emissions reduction fund, and the opportunity for making grants and investing in programs with that money. The majority disagrees. The fund will still exist and will still have some money entering it. But RGGI should be about the environment, not about the money. We believe that New Hampshire citizens should be allowed and trusted to keep their money in their own pockets and use it as they see fit, rather than the state collecting a stealth tax from the many through electric rates to redistribute “green pork” to the few. RGGI has morphed from a program focused on the environment to a public-sector attempt at a stimulus program in which administrators decide what is good for society and then pick winners and losers by directing ratepayer money to the winners. We do not believe this good-intentioned redistribution of wealth is worth the price. Since we cannot get out of the RGGI program, the best we can do is to try to reduce its negative impact on ratepayers. This bill does that. Vote 8-6.
Rep. Naida L Kaen for the Minority of Science, Technology and Energy: If this legislation becomes law New Hampshire businesses and New Hampshire citizens will lose their opportunity to readily access information, resources, and valuable tools to empower them to use energy more efficiently, thereby reducing our reliance on imported fuels and the need for expensive new power plants. Examples can be found throughout the state of municipalities, businesses and individual homes of efficiency projects which would not otherwise have been undertaken had New Hampshire not been participating in RGGI. New Hampshire ratepayers will continue to pay most of the costs of RGGI whether this bill passes or not. That is because NH is part of a power pool with the other New England states and those states' RGGI costs are embedded in the power we have no choice but to purchase. We would have all of the costs and none of the benefits which would then all flow to our neighboring states along with the associated business opportunities.
HB 1724-FN, requiring certain engine coolants and antifreeze to include an aversive agent so that they are rendered unpalatable. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Beatriz Pastor for Science, Technology and Energy: This bill proposes to address the problem of accidental poisoning due to ingestion of engine coolant or antifreeze by requiring manufacturers to add denatonium benzoate as an aversive agent so as to render the antifreeze unpalatable. The committee sympathizes with the good intent of this bill. However, the majority of the committee found itself unable to support this bill for a number of reasons. In the course of the public hearing’s lengthy testimony it became clear that, in states where similar legislation has been adopted, adding denatonium benzoate has not turned out to be an effective way to deal with the problem of antifreeze ingestion. Furthermore, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the toxicity of denatonium benzoate used as an additive in this manner and a disturbing lack of data regarding its possible negative impact on animals, people and the environment. The industry acknowledges both the uncertainty and the potential risks associated with this use , and, for that reason, has asked for complete immunity from any liability resulting from the use of antifreeze with the denatonium benzoate additive. While the industry supports this bill and stands ready to manufacture the product, it demands to be protected from any possible risk associated with its use. HB 1724 contains such an immunity clause. The majority of the committee believes that it would be unwise, indeed irresponsible, for this legislature to take the risk of requiring the use of a product with potentially dangerous effects while relieving its manufacturers from all responsibility and liability. Vote 11-3.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSIONS REFORM
HB 1460, establishing a committee to study additional public employee pension reforms. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Kenneth Hawkins for the Majority of Special Committee on Public Employee Pensions Reform: This bill was to establish a study committee for the New Hampshire Retirement System. The amendment replaces the bill with the establishment of a defined contribution system for all new employees hired after November 1, 2012. This is one of the platform positions - the reform of the pension system to help alleviate the uncertainty to the local taxpayers of New Hampshire for funding a plan that is only 67% funded. This bill now says that for future years the local taxpayer will know what the cost is no matter what the stock market fluctuations are. Vote 11-4.
Rep. Stephen J Shurtleff for the Minority of Special Committee on Public Employee Pensions Reform: This bill as amended is a seriously flawed bill that will cost the state, cities and municipalities hundreds of millions of dollars in the next biennium and many hundreds of millions in future state and local budgets. The amendment raises many unanswered questions and if there was ever a bill not ready for prime time, this is it. Other than the sponsor, there was no other testimony in favor. The municipal association spoke in opposition to the amendment because of the immediate increases to every public employer in the state. Even the Representatives on the committee who supported the amendment agreed this was a deeply flawed bill. The minority agrees that the amendment is bad and believes the House should never pass a bill knowing it is bad. We should never knowingly pass a bill expecting for another body to fix our mistakes.
WAYS AND MEANS
HB 593-FN-A-L, relative to video lottery and table gaming. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Gary S Azarian for the Majority of Ways and Means: This bill is a bi-partisan pro-business bill that will create jobs, grant tax relief, and provide the state with an additional revenue source. The citizens of the state overwhelmingly support the idea of expanded gaming. Today, New Hampshire residents spend roughly $80 million a year gambling outside of the state. That number will grow to upwards of $120 million if we fail to act on the opportunity presented with this bill. Expanded gaming will keep those dollars here and expand our economy by attracting residents from our neighboring states. The amendment to this bill provides for charitable gaming, provides $500 K for each license application, provides $100 K to the Attorney General’s office for investigation of each application, provides for a 120 day time frame for due diligence which can be extended if needed, provides for two category 1 licenses at $50 million each, one category 2 license for $20 million and one category 3 license to be reserved for the federal economically disadvantaged areas specifically the north country and or Cheshire county for $20 million. All license and application fees are directed to the general fund. This bill provides for an equitable process by which any entity can submit an application for any location and makes provisions for the north country and or Cheshire county. It provides revenue to offset business taxes, provides revenue to the host community and abutting community, and makes provision to HHS for those in need. Massachusetts has passed gaming legislation. If we fail to act on this legislation New Hampshire’s economy will be forever negatively impacted. The state will see a decrease in revenues from across a wide spectrum to include liquor, lottery, rooms and meals tax and tourism. Studies have indicated that when the doors open at Massachusetts casinos our state revenue will be negatively impacted by up to $75 million per year. If we do nothing we will have to make that up by additional spending cuts to our budget. We will also be paying for those who may become addicted to gambling out of state with no additional revenue to offset the cost. This bill supports job creation, tax relief, and additional revenue sources. Support the 72% of New Hampshire residents that support expanded gaming by supporting this bill. Vote 14-7.
Rep. David W Hess for the Minority of Ways and Means: This bill is the same casino gambling bill you thought you were going to vote on February 8th – only worse. It puts to rest once and for all the mantra that the casino interests, their lobbyists and lawyers have been repeating for over a year - the siren song of “limited” expanded gambling. This is proliferation before passage. With one stroke of the pen, two casinos have morphed into four, authorizing 14,000 slot machines and 420 table games, probably the highest concentration of legalized gambling per capita anywhere in the United States outside of Nevada. This bill will almost certainly put a casino within 50 miles of every man, woman and child in New Hampshire. Is that what you want for our state? In addition, this amendment quadruples the administrative review and oversight burdens on the lottery commission and Attorney General’s office while imposing the same short, artificial and unreasonable time lines for applicant vetting, background checks, and verification. And instead of saving the licensing fees by dedicating them to the rainy day fund, where they would at least enhance the state’s fiscal stability and bond rating (as the previous version of this bill did), these sums now go to the general fund. This will inevitably result in bigger government and higher state spending. Is that what you promised your constituents during the last election? Further, this amendment promises the mirage of reduced business taxes, something no one requested during any of the work sessions and single public hearing this amendment received; and something which could be reversed by yet another stroke of the pen before this bill ever went into effect, should it ever actually be passed. Finally, despite expanding the former duopoly into a quadrapoly, which in reality are four territorial monopolies, this amendment continues to perpetuate the same crony capitalism and restraint of trade which Part II, Article 83 of our New Hampshire Constitution abhors. And this latest proposed amendment to the original bill retains almost all of the flaws addressed in the previous iteration of this blurb. At the risk of being repetitious, and with due apologies, a summary of those same comments and observations follow. This amendment continues to be a Great Giveaway to the casino interests. The taxpayers of New Hampshire lose because the licensing fees remain at low, fixed arbitrary amounts, compared to many other states which have adopted a competitive bid process. Massachusetts, for example requires a minimum bid of $85 million in precisely the same market that casinos in southern New Hampshire will compete in – a market which Millenium has described as perhaps the most potentially-lucrative gambling market in the United States. Why are the renewal fees, at $125,000 and $300,000 per year, so absurdly low? Why is a licensee entitled to renew its monopoly every five years, in perpetuity, as long as it is “in good standing under this chapter?” And why doesn’t the state get a share of any windfall profits a licensee will harvest if, as will almost certainly happen, it “flips” its license by selling it to a third party for considerably more than it paid? The state of New Hampshire and host municipalities lose because the “take” from the casino operations is arbitrarily set at 40% for VLTs and 8% for table games. The original bill sent 49% of slot machine proceeds to our public coffers. Pennsylvania collects 55% and has had no shortage of applicants for its casino licenses, including Millenium. Third, New Hampshire jobs and the New Hampshire economy lose because this bill requires no minimum capital investment and no construction build-out time line. Massachusetts requires a minimum investment of $500 million. Millenium and Green Meadows have told us they plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in Salem and Hudson so let’s require a minimum capital investment in the bill, instead of making this just another part of the Great Giveaway. Further, the regulatory framework for effective oversight of this huge industry with incredible cash flows is not in place. In its May 18, 2010 report, the Governor’s Gaming Study Commission recommended: “New Hampshire needs to review its regulation of gaming, with or without expansion of legalized gaming. To insure integrity and public confidence, this review should be completed and necessary changes implemented before any expansion is enacted.” That has not come about. In addition to imposing artificial and unreasonable time lines on the Lottery Commission, this bill requires the Commission to adopt “interim rules” governing the licensing process for these casinos within 90 days of passage of the bill. “Interim rules” require no public hearing before adoption. Why the rush? Why does this bill circumvent sound public policy and transparency? Finally, there is no turning back if this bill passes. Once casinos are in place, they will be here forever. Many of us believe they will change the culture and tourism brand of New Hampshire forever – and not for the better. This bill is 38 pages long; the Massachusetts law is 168 pages long. What are we missing? If we are to have casino gambling here in New Hampshire, let’s do it right. This bill doesn’t even come close.
HB 1607-FN-L, establishing an education credit against the business profits tax. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Bill Ohm for the Majority of Ways and Means: This bill, with the amendment recommended by the committee, first and foremost promotes school choices for those that might not otherwise be able to afford it. The school choice scholarships, managed by non-profit scholarship organizations, are funded by donations from businesses who receive tax credits when they donate. This bill adds New Hampshire to a program that is successful in eight other states, and was created here by melding the best practices of all the other programs. The program works as follows: if parents of limited means wish to send their kids to a non-public school, or a different public school that agrees to accept them, they may apply for a scholarship from an approved non-profit scholarship organization. The average scholarship would be $2,500. Home schoolers would also qualify, but their scholarship amount would only cover materials and be limited to $750. Businesses who choose to donate to such scholarship organizations would receive a tax credit of 85% of their donation. This tax credit would apply to their BET or BPT. There is no net cost to the state for this program for at least the next two years. New Hampshire currently pays $4,100 per student to local school districts for adequate education funding, and saves that amount for students who leave the public school system. The amount saved offsets the amount lost in the reduced BET/BPT given as tax credits to the businesses who donate. One concern is the effect on local school districts. To mitigate this concern, the amount of scholarships is limited to $4 million in the first year, increasing to $6 million and finally $8 million in subsequent years. For reference, a $4 million cap represents ¼ of 1% of the total dollars spent each year on public education. Given the $4 million cap, the restriction on the average scholarship size, and the percentage of scholarships that must go to public school students, the public school attendance drop will be less than 2,500. The committee felt that this amount is within the normal annual variance of student population. Beginning with the third year, if demand for scholarships exceed 80%, the program will increase by 25% the following year. Vote 16-5.
Rep. Christine C Hamm for the Minority of Ways and Means: This bill would implement a tax credit for businesses offering scholarships to students attending private schools. The minority objects for several reasons, but primarily because this program extracts money from New Hampshire's public schools in favor of funding private, religious and home schools, thus costing the state and school districts important and sparse revenues now used towards public education. The cost of the plan is not, as supporters claim, revenue neutral. Department of Education calculations show that the cost to the state budget would increase yearly in the three years the legislature reviews for fiscal impact, and would continue to increase each year thereafter. While estimates are that it would save the state budget $47,000 in the first year, by Year Three it would cost the state $2 million. It does this by taking full per pupil adequacy aid away from the local school districts the same month they lose a student who is granted a scholarship to a private school. Using conservative numbers, the immediate loss to a school district would be at least $3,500 per pupil; the net loss to the school districts statewide is estimated at $3.6 million the first year, $5.2 million in Year Three. As the program expands, the negative impact on the state and local school budgets will increase an unknown amount, potentially more than $100 million in the first decade. The minority has concerns that any such shortfall would have to be offset local property taxes. In 1967, 1969 and 1992, the state Supreme Court issued opinions that could be used as precedents in cases against this legislation. Part I, Article 6 of our state constitution states in part, “No person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination,” while Part II, Article 83 states in part, “Provided nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination.” As the 1969 case dealt specifically with tax credits and as our state constitution is quite explicit on this issue, the success of a legal challenge arguing that businesses are being used only as an intermediary to deny a direct, unconstitutional, connection between the taxpayer and a religious school, is a real possibility--- the recent case of Arizona v Wynn notwithstanding since this decision affected only the federal level. In addition, this bill, as amended, contains a number of stipulations incumbent upon both donors and recipients that would be difficult, if not impossible, to monitor and enforce, thus leaving the law open to abuse. While proponents have expressed hope this legislation would encourage competition, and thus lead to improvements in public education, the minority believes that this bill’s lack of academic accountability from recipients---both students and providers---means that the state could be neglecting its fiscal responsibility by foregoing money that otherwise would be directed towards public schools and allowing it to instead be paid to less-qualified providers. The combination of means testing and the cost of private schools means that only home-schoolers and families located near subsidized private schools are likely to benefit. Even withstanding the other concerns expressed, such benefits to a few seem disproportionate to the negative effects on the greater part of the state’s student population.
HB 1701-FN, prohibiting New Hampshire from entering into or enforcing reciprocal agreements with other states to deny rights and privileges for nonpayment of taxes owed to another state. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Frank V Sapareto for the Majority of Ways and Means: This bill would protect New Hampshire citizens and businesses from taxes levied in other states from being collected in New Hampshire. New Hampshire will not collect taxes for other states when such taxes do not exist here. For example, since we have no sales tax, New Hampshire businesses will not collect this tax from consumers in our state. Since New Hampshire chooses not to implement certain taxes, it makes no sense to enforce laws from other states to collect these taxes. The amendment exempts reciprocal agreements of concern to the department of safety and has no fiscal impact to New Hampshire. This law is very pro New Hampshire. Vote 17-4.
Rep. Susan W Almy for the Minority of Ways and Means: This bill has the laudable objective of stopping other states from using New Hampshire’s departments to collect back taxes from our citizens, and is meant to focus on motor vehicle license suspensions. However, it is worded much more broadly than that. The first committee exempted several essential programs that would have been destroyed by the bill, which prohibits all inter-state collaboration of this type. But the department of administrative services says in the amended fiscal note that it cannot identify what other programs might have this issue. The minority does not feel that the bill should be passed without a thorough search for such other programs, as the results of finding them after enactment could be quite painful.
No comments:
Post a Comment