“Representative Ley has proven himself to be a rogue partisan extremist, and has demonstrated that he is not fit to serve in a leadership role in this body. His divisive comments yesterday showed that he is more interested in fanning the flames of discontent in the House, than resolving concerns in a professional and respectful manner. In my 4 years as a member of the majority leadership team, we would have never resorted to making a public spectacle of this sort on the House floor. We always extended courtesy to our friends in the minority to work out our differences with dignity and honor rather than impugn our colleagues’ motives before the House. It’s become clear to me that Speaker Shurtleff has lost control of his majority leader, and should terminate Representative Ley’s role as a member of leadership. There’s a very big difference between civil discourse, and rising before your peers to make a condescending speech. It’s time for Speaker Shurtleff to lead by example.”
“Just a few short months ago, as he was accepting the nomination for Speaker, Speaker Shurtleff reflected on what he learned from one of his many listed Republican mentors, ‘…his demeanor as speaker had a lasting impact on me, and the message that it’s so important to put partisanship aside to work for the common good of the people.’ Mr. Speaker, I ask that you follow that advice that had a ‘lasting impact’ on you and put partisanship aside for the good of the House and the good of our citizens that we work hard for every day. It’s time for Representative Ley to go, and time for the Speaker to install someone who embodies the spirit of how the Speaker said he would run this House.”
“There were 47 Democrats that joined with Republicans to table further comment from Rep. Ley. I would like to personally thank them in recognizing that divisive comments have no place at the rostrum during unanimous consent, and voting to end his rantings.”
Background: Unanimous consent is traditionally a time when the House allows remarks from members not specific to legislation. It is often used to memorialize colleagues, celebrate holidays or historical events, and allows members to apologize if they went afoul of House traditions. Appropriately titled, unanimous consent requires no objection from any member of the House. If a member withdraws their consent, remarks can be stalled. Only a few occasions in the last 10 years has unanimous consent been halted due to objection.
CONCORD – House Republican Leader Dick Hinch (R-Merrimack) issued a statement relative to the press conference held today where Governor Sununu and local and state leaders spoke in support of the Capital Infrastructure Revitalization Fund as part of his FY 2020—2021 Budget.
“The governor has it right. One time revenue should be designated to one time appropriations, and sending money back to towns, and specific projects within state agencies helps offset local and state costs. He’s identified real needs in communities, and departments, and he’s doing it the right way. Democrats might see the dollar signs, and might be realizing that with all of the appropriations bills they’ve already passed, plus all the budget promises they’ve made, they might have to cut these projects to fund their big government dreams. They’ve maxed out on raising taxes and fees (I hope), so they have to get more money from somewhere, and unfortunately, this is an easy target.”
House Republican Leader Richard Hinch (R-Merrimack) released the following statement in response to remarks delivered by House Democrat Majority Leader Douglas Ley (D-Jaffrey) during the unanimous consent portion of the House proceedings:
“I find it highly inappropriate that the House Majority Leader Douglas Ley took advantage of unanimous consent at the end of session to admonish and lecture the Republican caucus on decorum and behavior in and outside of the House. He should stick to dealing with his own fractured caucus and leave Republican affairs to Republican leadership to address. If he has concerns about the behavior about some individuals there are more professional ways to go about resolving them. The Speaker should have never let his Majority Leader take this unprofessional and disrespectful route.”
CONCORD – House Republican Leader Dick Hinch (R-Merrimack) issued a statement following the New Hampshire House vote to pass HB397, relative to drivers’ licenses for New Hampshire residents who do not possess a social security card.
“Democrats in New Hampshire are totally out of touch with our state. HB397 would allow illegal immigrants to obtain a Driver’s License using an expired alien registration card and a foreign passport in lieu of a social security card,” said Hinch. “We should not be rewarding people in our state illegally while millions of people around the world are waiting to come lawfully. It’s unfair.”
“The consequences of this bill could be serious. With New Hampshire’s current laws, allowing illegal immigrants to receive a valid Drivers’ License could make it easier for them to participate in several other things, like vote in our elections. If this bill becomes law, we may allow thousands of undocumented immigrants to take advantage of other rights and services that should be exclusive to lawful citizens.”
CONCORD – House Republican Leader Dick Hinch (R-Merrimack) issued a statement following the New Hampshire House vote to pass SB1-FN, relative to family and medical leave.
“Groups representing New Hampshire’s business community spoke up loud and clear in their opposition to this program. Despite this testimony, House Democrats decided to pass their fatally flawed paid family leave program.” Said Hinch. “Our state’s job creators know what it takes to attract and retain employees in this tight labor market. Many of our state’s employers can already provide similar coverage if they think it’s right for their workers. The importance here is the power of choice.”
“House Democrats can try to disguise it, but a 0.5% tax on wages is an income tax,” Hinch said. “Even with this questionable funding mechanism, House Democrats still couldn’t guarantee that the program will be solvent. I can’t think of any other reason they’d give an unelected bureaucrat the ability to raise their ‘tax on wages’.”