Altogether, there are 19 Democrat-sponsored floor amendments to the House Finance Committee’s version of House Bills 1 and 2, which together comprise the Granite State’s budget.

In particular, the amendments would provide more money to community college and university systems, mental health services, three programs in Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture (to stop three proposed job cuts), and to the consumer protection division in the Department of Justice.

Other amendments also propose alterations to retirement system changes, a measure to restore more funding to reimburse hospitals for uncompensated care, and — importantly — revised revenue estimates, which would allow for the increased funding.

Here are a few floor amendments, in particular, that caught our eye:

• Listing the scores of highway construction and improvement projects in dozens of towns that would be eliminated due to reductions in the Finance Committee’s budget. The projects total $378,000, and all had been approved in 2010 as part of the 2011-2020 Ten-Year Transportation Plan. (HB 2)
• Remove Rep. Neal Kurk’s (R-Weare) amendment that would make public employees “at will” when their contracts expire, giving employers (ie: the state, municipalities) the upper hand in negotiations. (HB 2)
• Restore more than $25 million in payments to community mental health centers. (HB 1)
• Add $12 million to the community college system and $50 million to the University System of New Hampshire budgets. (HB 1)
• Restore $5 million for employment–related childcare programs. (HB 1)
• Fund seven state police detective positions. (HB 1)

>> The debates will begin in earnest today at 9 a.m. when the House meets in full session at Representatives Hall to consider the main budget bills, the floor amendments, and more than 25 other bills on the consent and regular calendars.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

In this installment, we look at five bills that are part of the so-called Regular Calendar for the House this week — meaning they are subject to floor debate and roll call votes where every lawmaker’s vote is recorded. These are measures we’ve covered this session, encompassing issues including medical marijuana, abortion, the Financial Resources Mortgage scandal, and taxes.

To help you follow along, the committee names are linked to previous Front Door Politics dispatches on these bills.

Medical Marijuana

Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs

In November, we noted that Rep. Evalyn Merrick (D- Lancaster) was submitting another medical marijuana legalization bill after Gov. John Lynch vetoed a similar effort last year. This time around, House Bill 442 passed the committee with a strong, bipartisan 14-3 vote recommending it pass the full House.

A Second FRM Study Committee

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

House Bill 178, a Republican-led effort to establish a second committee to study the recently exposed Ponzi scheme at Financial Resources Mortgage, received a positive recommendation from its committee.

The FRM Commission established by Democratic leadership last year filed a report in December. The supporters of HB 178 believe a follow-up committee could incorporate all the various reports on the scandal — including a report due out by the end of the month from the N.H. Bureau of Securities Regulation — to provide a comprehensive resource for the House in case of further legislative action.

Parental Notification

Judiciary

By a 12-4 vote, this committee gave House Bill 329 an Ought to Pass recommendation. The bill would reestablish a state parental notification requirement before “unemancipated children” can have an abortion. Exceptions would be medical emergencies or cases in which the minor is granted a waiver from notification requirements through confidential court proceedings.

The majority report says the bill should be supported because:

• It has “the fairest and most accessible judicial by-pass system that has ever been proposed in New Hampshire or any other state”
• “It will not negatively affect the health or safety of any female children in New Hampshire”
• “It reinforces the legislature’s belief that parents are the most important part of a child’s life and are necessary to protect the children from their own immaturity”
• “It fosters the family structure and preserves it as a viable social unit”
• “It brings New Hampshire in line with 43 other states that have passed such laws to protect their children.”

The minority report opposing the bill says that 75 percent of young women do get support and parental guidance. But for “those who are unable to do so have heartbreaking reasons: there is physical or sexual abuse in the home; the parent is unable, through physical or mental illness or addiction, to offer support; the young woman fears being thrown out of the home. Currently, these most vulnerable young women have the safety net of safe, legal health care provided by experienced licensed medical professionals and counselors.  For these young women who lack parental support, passage of this bill poses very real risks to their health.” The minority report also questions whether the courts, especially in small towns, can really ensure confidentiality in judicial bypass proceedings, and whether the judicial system has the funding to cover their costs.

Tax Cuts

Ways and Means

We think it’s a safe bet that the House will approve two tax cut proposals for the tobacco tax (House Bill 156) and the business profits tax (House Bill 213). If passed into law, the combined drop in 2012 revenues to the state would be an estimated $25 million. It’s also likely that, when passed, both bills will be set aside (“laid on the table”) as was the fate of the three previous tax cutting measures (see previous dispatch here.)

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

House Speaker William O'Brien

House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) has decided to have no full House sessions this week, allowing more time for committees to make their annual mad rush to beat the legislative calendar. In particular, there’s the March 10 (tomorrow) deadline to report all bills (except those in their second committee, like Finance). Meanwhile, the Crossover deadline of March 31 — when all House bills cross over to the Senate and vice versa — is creeping closer by the day.

This week’s meetings aside, beginning next Tuesday morning (March 15), O’Brien will crack the proverbial whip and keep lawmakers busy with three straight full House sessions, all beginning at 9:00 a.m. In that spirit, today we turn the spotlight on three of today’s executive session committee votes on bills we have followed this season.

Election Law Committee

Last month we highlighted the debate over two controversial bills: House Bill 176, which would not allow college students to vote in local or statewide elections if they weren’t originally residents of the town they live in for college; and House Bill 223, which if passed would disallow election day voter registration. We recommend listening to the audio files from the public hearings of both bills (HB 176 and HB 223).

>> Executive Session, House Election Law Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 308, March 9, 10:30 a.m.

Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs

We highlighted House Bill 228 last month and today the full committee will vote on the measure to eliminate all state funding to Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. The organization provides family planning services and other health care programs and if the measure passes, it will save the state an estimated $365,000.

>> Executive Session, House Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 205, 10:00 a.m.

Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Back in December we initially reported that Speaker O’Brien had sponsored a measure to expand the state’s death penalty statute. House Bill 147 proposes to include a capital murder provision that reads “a person is guilty of capital murder if he or she knowingly causes the death of another, while in another’s residence, while attempting to enter another’s residence, or as a consequence of having been in another’s residence, without invitation or right.” O’Brien’s home town of Mont Vernon was the location of an October 2009 home invasion murder of a 42-year-old mother, whose 11-year-old daughter survived the same attack.

>> Executive Session, House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 204, 10:00 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

The move comes midway through an extended public hearing on one of New Hampshire’s most challenging public policy debates: a constitutional amendment on education funding. The public hearing continues Wednesday in the House Special Committee on Education Funding Reform.

Sponsored by Rep. David Hess (R-Hooksett), CACR 12 would also allow lawmakers to target education funding to smooth financial disparities among different communities. The amendment attempts to move beyond the state Supreme Court’s 1997 Claremont decision. If approved by the Legislature, CACR 12 would go before New Hampshire voters in 2012.

In his January inaugural address this year, Gov. John Lynch, who has long supported a constitutional amendment to allow for targeted education funding, said such a measure would affirm “our responsibility for education; but gives us the flexibility we need to give every child in every town the opportunity for a quality education.”

In The Nashua Telegraph, Kevin Landrigan reported Sunday on the bid to find the right language that will appeal to Lynch and Senate Republicans. In 2007, Lynch and then-House Speaker Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) made a hard push for a targeted funding amendment. However, a majority of Democrats balked at taking oversight authority away from Supreme Court, which currently has final say on whether the state is living up to its constitutional obligations on education funding.

>> Wednesday, March 9, House Special Committee on Education Funding Reform, public hearing on CACR 12, Legislative Office Building, Room 207.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

House Bill 429, sponsored by Rep. James Parison (R-New Ipswich), would allow students 16 years of age or older to withdraw from high school with parental permission. The revised law defining truancy would not require students to get permission from the school superintendent or have an “alternative learning plan for obtaining either a high school diploma or its equivalent.” *

In 2007, Gov. John Lynch saw this top legislative priority passed when lawmakers approved Senate Bill 18, a bipartisan measure that broadened educational programs to lower the dropout rate and keep students in school until age 18. The debate was strong as opponents cited local control and freedom of choice for students and families, while proponents said that a high school diploma was the minimum necessary to succeed in a global marketplace. Senate Bill 18 passed in the House by a slim margin — a 183-170 roll call vote.

The House Education Committee held its only public hearing on HB 429 yesterday. Lynch wrote to the committee, urging them to oppose the measure.

By a 213-134 vote last Wednesday, the House rejected a proposal to repeal a different 2007 education reform law, a mandate for statewide public kindergarten.

The Education Committee will also make recommendations on 14 other bills, including one that would require 45 minutes of daily physical education for public school students (House Bill 377) and another to  establish a study committee on abolishing the state Department of Education (House Bill 219).

>> Thursday, March 3, executive session of the House Education Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 207, begins at 10 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

*Our original dispatch mistakenly reported that House Bill 429 would also require superintendent permission and an alternative learning plan.

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to make recommendations for a bill that would require parental notification for minors seeking abortions. Two measures to repeal the state’s equal marriage law that went into effect in 2010 are also on the schedule. Republican leadership positions on these controversial social issues is mixed.

House Bill 329 would require doctors to notify the parents or guardians of unemancipated minors before performing an abortion. While Republican leaders have given the green light to this bill, they are encouraging a hold on the gay marriage repeal bills (House Bills 437 and 443) until the 2012 session.

Parental Notification

The committee held a public hearing Monday on parental notification, sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Souza (R-Manchester). The bill would make non-notification a misdemeanor crime. It also creates an exception for medical emergencies, along with a way for a pregnant minor to seek a waiver from notification through the courts.

In 2007, the Democratic-controlled Legislature repealed a similar 2003 law after a lengthy court fight. A federal judge had struck down the law as unconstitutional because it did not include an exception in case the health of the mother was at stake.

“One of the problems facing society today is the lack of parental involvement on many levels, said Majority Leader Rep. D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) in a letter to the Judiciary Committee. “Young girls who cannot so much as be given an aspirin by the school nurse without parental permission must have their parents involved in such a crucial medical procedure, especially when it involves the long term physical and mental health of their child.”

Opponents of notification requirements argue that in some abusive households, notification itself can endanger the life or well-being of the pregnant child.

The most recent WMUR Granite State Poll, released in early February, found that 57 percent of New Hampshire residents favor some sort of law that would require minors to notify a parent before getting an abortion. Thirty-four percent oppose a parental consent bill, and 10 percent are neutral.

Equal Marriage

Both of the equal marriage repeal bills — HB 437, sponsored by Rep. David Bates (R-Windham), and HB 443, sponsored by Rep. Leo Pepino (R-Manchester) — would also repeal the state’s civil union statutes.

The premise of House Bill 437 is based in part on the assertion that marriage is older than politics, itself. “The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women — sometimes unintentionally,” the bill states. “Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest” in promoting heterosexual marriages, “so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.” The bill also states that “marriage is the primary social institution” that promotes the love, care and support of children by their parents.

The Judiciary Committee held lengthy public hearings on the gay marriage repeal bills on Feb 17. Estimated turnout ranged from 600 to 800 people, many of whom opposed the repeal measures. The findings of the WMUR Granite State Poll on the whole showed support for gay marriage among Granite Staters: 62 percent oppose repeal, 29 percent support it, and 9 percent are neutral.

Lew Feldstein, co-chair of the recently formed organization Standing Up for New Hampshire Families, which opposes gay marriage repeal, said last month that “the state, like the rest of the country, is moving toward equality – not away from it. Taking away the option to marry does not square with our values.”

The committee can opt to retain the gay marriage repeal bills in committee until the 2012 session. In January, Republican leaders said that repealing gay marriage was not on their priority list for 2011.

>> Executive session of the House Judiciary Committee for HB 329, HB 437 and HB 443, Legislative Office Building, Room 208, beginning at 1 p.m. If votes are not completed Tuesday, the session will be continued to Thursday, March 3.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

The House Education Committee is expected to make a recommendation today on House Bill 631, sponsored by Rep. Jonathan Maltz (R-Hudson). The bill would both repeal a provision of the 2007 adequate education law for public kindergarten and exempt school districts that eliminate public kindergarten from having to repay the state aid they’ve gotten to add it.

Hudson was the final district to offer kindergarten in 2009 and is one of six districts that have received extra money from the state to establish the programs. According to the bill’s fiscal analysis, those districts have received a total of $2 million, will receive another $2 million for 2011-2012 and have requested $12 million for 2012-2013.

The fight over mandatory public kindergarten has gone on for decades in New Hampshire, a battle pitting educator recommendations for childhood education against advocates for local control. When Gov. John Lynch signed the adequate education bill into law in 2007, New Hampshire became the 50^th and final state in the country to mandate public kindergarten. At the public hearing Tuesday, Maltz said mandatory kindergarten was an unconstitutional unfunded mandate by the state, according to a Concord Monitor story.

In written testimony to the committee, Lynch opposed HB 631, saying he doesn’t want the state to return to pre-2007 standards. “The independent research is clear about the importance of kindergarten to the education of our children and the contribution it makes to ensuring later academic success,” Lynch said. “By ensuring all of our children have the opportunity to attend kindergarten, we are laying the foundation for success, and providing an equal opportunity for all students to begin their education on sure footing.”

Though the adequate education measure establishing public kindergarten (House Bill 927) had some bipartisan support from Sen. Robert Odell (R-Lempster) and Sen. Nancy Stiles (R-Hampton), who was then serving in the House, the debate in 2007 was mostly partisan. During the final vote on HB 927, Odell was the only Senate Republican to support it and Stiles was one of only 10 House Republicans to vote for it.

>> Thursday, Feb. 8 — Executive session of the House Education Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 207, 1 p.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

The House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee will hold the first public hearing on House Bill 228 Tuesday. While no state or federal funds can be used for abortions — except in the case of rape, incest, or danger to mother’s health — the bill’s primary sponsor claims the state’s taxpayers are paying for them, all the same.

“It all goes into the same pot of money, doesn’t it?” said Rep. Robert Willette (R-Milford). “The taxpayers of this state don’t want to pay for abortions.”

But Kary Jencks, the public policy director of the New Hampshire chapter of PPNNE, says that is a frequent and inaccurate claim made by opponents of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of reproductive health services.

“None,” Jencks says when asked about the amount of government funds used for abortions. “We hear the same talking points every year. If they can’t make abortion illegal, they want to target providers. This is part of a national effort to shut us down.”

She explains that 97 percent of services offered by PPNNE are normal primary and preventative health care. Only 17 percent of the funds for clinics in New Hampshire come from state and federal government grants and contracts, she says. That money is used, in part, to subsidize many low-income patients who don’t have health insurance and don’t qualify for Medicaid. Jencks says among the most frequently used services are annual gynecological exams that include screenings for five types of cancer — cervical, breast, uterine, colorectal and ovarian. She says that no patients are turned away for inability to pay and that the New Hampshire clinics provided $5.5 million in donated care in 2010.

“We provide essential health services that are definitely vital to New Hampshire women and families,” Jencks says. “I will be testifying specifically about preventive health care. Abortion is not the issue. The real message is the necessary preventive care we provide.”

Willette says budget priorities are another reason for HB 228, but even he admits he doesn’t know exactly how much PPNNE gets from the state or how much money would be saved. While the legislative office has yet to supply a financial analysis for HB 228, the analysis for the 2009 measure (House Bill 486) showed that the N.H. Department of Public Health had a contract with PPNNE for $848,024. State general funds accounted for $84,802 of that, and $763,222 came from federal matching grants.

“The taxpayers of New Hampshire shouldn’t have to pay anything to Planned Parenthood,” Willette says.

Both of the two similar bills from 2007 and 2009 were voted “inexpedient to legislate” out of committee and were defeated on the floor. Jencks says this year promises to be different because of the Republican supermajorities in the House and Senate and the number of new lawmakers who have arrived. “We still have a lot of unknowns and don’t know the personality of the House yet,” she says.

The hearing on HB 228 comes amid a charged political environment in the debate over abortion. Congressional Republicans have a bill to defund Planned Parenthood nationally, and the organization was also targeted by a group operating a with a video sting campaign in six states. (For more about that controversy, read this Washington Post story.)

Even in the event of a state funding cutoff, Jencks says, “we’re not going anywhere.” Judging by the repeated attempts to de-fund Planned Parenthood, neither is the abortion debate.

>> Tuesday, Feb. 8, at 1:30 p.m. — Public hearing for House Bill 228 in the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 205.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

Sponsored by Rep. Kenneth Gould (R-Derry), House Bill 34 would maintain current levels of education grant funding to municipalities for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The House Education Committee is scheduled to meet Tuesday in executive session and could make a recommendation to the full House about the bill at that time.

As reported last April in Front Door Politics, the issue is a vital one for a number of towns and cities. Some communities like Derry would see their state funding go down if the formula changes according to schedule. In that case, their local taxes would likely be raised to make up the difference. On the other hand, communities like Manchester and Conway are expecting a significant rise in funding under the new formula, so they are not keen to see the transition delayed.

The current formula, often referred to as the education funding “collar,” was designed to help communities prepare for changes to the overall funding structure.

Last year, Senate Bill 465 would have extended the collar through 2012 and set up a legislative study committee to investigate the formula and offer recommendations going forward. But, that measure died in May when the House chose not to make the bill part of the overall House-Senate budget reconciliation conference (a process for the two bodies to work out disagreements over particulars in a bill).

As noted last year, much of the voting broke down less on political than on geographical grounds. Legislators whose communities stood to lose state aid tended to support the extension of the current aid formula, while those who stood to gain state aid generally opposed the extension. Those whose districts included schools on both sides of the equation faced a difficult decision.

>> Feb. 1 — Executive Session of the House Education Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 207, 2 p.m.

>> Go to the state Department of Education web site for an explainer on how state aid is determined.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

Will the gay marriage law of 2009 be repealed? Will medical marijuana get a closer look? Will parental notification for teenage abortions be restored?

These are a few policy questions that lawmakers will consider when the 2011 legislative session opens Jan. 5. In our latest installment of previewing proposed bills, we look at three hot-button bills that will likely garner headlines — including here at Front Door Politics — in the next few months.

Medical Marijuana

As we reported last month, there’s another bid in the works to legalize medical marijuana after a similar bill was narrowly defeated in 2009 (you can read our extensive explainer post here). 

Sponsored by Rep. Evalyn Merrick (D-Lancaster), who was the prime sponsor of the 2009 effort, the newly proposed House bill has bipartisan support from two important Republicans: Rep. Jennifer Coffey of Andover, Vice-Chair of the Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee, and Rep. Elaine Swinford of Center Barnstead, Chair of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

This is no guarantee the proposal will make it any further than the 2009 effort, but the support of Coffey and Swinford will likely lead to another serious debate.

Parental Notification

First, some history: The 2003 “parental notification law” passed by the Legislature was among the most restrictive in the country. It required teenage girls to notify their parents of a pending abortion, with no medical exception. The measure was fought all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court, which heard the case in 2005. In early 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned an Appeal Court ruling that struck the entire law down, saying instead that the law needed to include an exception for medical emergencies.

Eventually, the court battle became moot. In 2007, the Legislature became the first state to repeal parental notification when it passed (and Gov. John Lynch signed) House Bill 184.

A 2008 Republican proposal would have restored the notification law with a medical exemption and the added possibility of a judicial waiver. But Senate Bill 302 did not pass.

This year, a restoration of the parental notification law has been proposed by Rep. Kathleen Souza (R-Manchester). It is not known yet if that bill will contain the same exemptions as the 2008 proposal.

Gay Marriage

Three new bills sponsored by 12 Republican House and Senate members would repeal the state’s equal marriage law, which passed in 2009 and went into effect Jan. 1, 2010.

One proposal by Rep. Leo Pepino (R-Manchester) would establish “that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” It’s not known whether the final language of the bill will negate the more the 3,000 gay marriages that have taken place in New Hampshire so far, or if it would also invalidate civil unions.

Pepino told the Portsmouth Herald earlier this month that, while Republican leaders will focus on the budget, repeal supporters will get the bill passed this spring — and that the votes are there to easily override Gov. Lynch’s probably veto. But in the same Herald story, former Democratic Rep. Jim Splaine of Portsmouth said the veto override votes will not be there as the effort to repeal the law will lead to major backlash.

On Deck

We won’t have a Daily Dispatch for tomorrow on New Year’s Eve. But we will return on Monday with a preview of the busy week ahead as the House and Senate open their sessions on Wednesday and Gov. John Lynch is inaugurated for an historical fourth term on Thursday.

We wish you a safe and happy New Year!

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.