House Panel Recommends Casino Bill Be Killed

CONCORD – The casino gambling fight will resume in the full House of Representatives, despite a House committee's narrow vote Wednesday recommending the major casino bill in New Hampshire be killed.

By a 23-22 vote, a House committee recommended Senate Bill 152 be found "inexpedient to legislate."

The vote came after a slew of amendments were presented in the committee's morning work session that would have completely reworked the bill as it passed the New Hampshire Senate with overwhelming support back in March.

But 16 proposed amendments never had the opportunity to be voted on by the committee, as the ITL motion, offered by Rep. Patricia Lovejoy (D-Stratham), was taken up first.

"There will never be only one casino," Lovejoy said to the joint committee of House Finance and Ways & Means. "There is no state that has one casino. Proliferation is a given.

"We may be 45 very bright people, but not one of us has a background in gaming."

Lovejoy later commented on the decision by Committee Chairwoman Mary Jane Wallner (D-Concord) to take her motion up first.

"That's up to the chairman to decide, which motion that she's going to take first," said Lovejoy. "She decided that she was going to take ITL and I was asked to do it. I don't want to comment on the chairman's procedure. Each chair can decide which motion that they want to take first."

Lovejoy was surprised by the 23-22 roll call, which she said put all of the representatives on edge.

"The bill that was brought to us was really in bad shape," she said. "The Senate did not spend any time on it whatsoever. I think what would be best is if we had a very good casino bill to vote on. But that's going to take an extended period of time to put one together, to put the regulations in place."

Rep. Gary Azarian (R-Salem), a known casino proponent, said that the process was "flawed" and that each amendment should have been voted up or down one by one.

"I think (the process) was designed that way so the bill would fail.

Azarian worried that Millennium Gaming will no longer be interested in Rockingham Park, adding that the park, one of the "crown jewels" in the state, could go away forever.

Rich Killion, spokesman for Millennium Gaming, later said that his organization remains fully committed to Rockingham Park and to the community of Salem.

Killion also issued a statement on the Joint Committee vote:

Today's committee vote continues to show the gaining momentum in the House for supporting a casino in New Hampshire. The one vote difference between support and opposition among the joint committee is light years from where this process started just last month.   Despite committee composition encompassing nearly a 2-to-1 history of opposing expanded gambling, this vote shows real progress and real momentum generating as it goes to the floor next week.

What is surprising and unfortunate, however, is the Chair's decision to not allow members to vote upon the thoughtful suggestions and amendments prepared by so many members.  To have them ceremoniously discarded without a vote seems to be against the best traditions of the people's House. We look forward to House debate next week where the process will ensure every member is heard and everyone's vote is counted. 

The people of New Hampshire have studied this issue for decades and support a casino in New Hampshire by 2-to-1 margins.  As members of the House ponder this issue, we hope they listen to the people.

Millennium Gaming owns the option to purchase Rockingham Park should legislation passed and the park be awarded the bid for a casino.

Rep. Marilinda Garcia (R-Salem), who said she has been generally inclined against expanded gaming in the state as a revenue machine, called the process of voting on the inexpedient to legislate motion a "little unfortunate."

"I know a lot of people were intending on opposing the bill, but in fact were in opposition to the process instead," she said.

During the discussion on Lovejoy's ITL motion, Rep. Susan Almy (D-Hanover) worried that the amendments wouldn't make a difference in improving the bill.

"I'm severely worried that the product that we would send out if we started trying to amend this would be as bad as what we've got," she said.

Opposing the motion was Rep. Frank Sapareto, (R-Derry), who used to be against expanded gambling but now believes that New Hampshire will miss the boat if legislation fails and Massachusetts casinos are built.

"Booze, butts and bets are the way we make our money," said Sapareto. He added that SB 152 is the one way of raising revenue without taxing the public.

Expecting a close House vote on May 22 is Rep. Al Baldasaro (R-Londonderry), who said that ITL decisions from committees have been overturned before. He remains on the fence about Senate Bill 152.

Casino supporters are confronting some thorny history: The House has never passed an expanded gambling bill.

Prospects for at least one casino in New Hampshire looked good at the start of the legislative session, with Gov. Maggie Hassan (D-Exeter) giving her support to one high-end casino – and even including a proposed $80 million casino license fee in her recommended budget for 2014-2015. 

Hassan also issued a statement, saying she was encouraged by the closeness of the ITL vote:

I am extremely encouraged by the closeness of today's committee vote. Even without members having the opportunity to vote on bipartisan amendments, the one-vote margin demonstrates the strong and growing support in the House of Representatives for SB 152.

As the bill moves to the floor, I believe the full House will give a more complete consideration to this legislation and the proposed bipartisan amendments that were not voted on today. I am confident the House understands that the people of New Hampshire want to invest in the priorities needed to create jobs, strengthen our communities, and spur innovative economic growth: higher education, mental health, public safety, economic development, and other critical areas. And the people of New Hampshire strongly support funding our priorities through one highly regulated destination casino.

I urge the full House to listen to the people we represent, thoughtfully consider the legislation and proposed changes, and vote in favor of moving forward with our own plan to build a stronger, more innovative New Hampshire.

Leaders of two anti-casino groups said the committee vote indicated the bill was bad policy. Lew Feldstein of Casino Free New Hampshire said:

"The Joint Committee spent three weeks attempting to address the failings of SB 152 but could not overcome the bill's inadequacies. Thanks to Speaker Terie Norelli and the members of the Joint Committee, there was a careful review of the bill and they concluded that the certain costs outweigh the possible benefits. A state partnership with the casino industry would mark a major departure from New Hampshire's public policy tradition."

Jim Rubens, of the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling, had this to say:

"It's a very bad deal for New Hampshire. Without providing certain, stable revenues for either the next budget or the future, SB 152 would do lasting damage to our state. SB152 would create more new addicts than new jobs and send millions of entertainment dollars that now circulate in our local economy to a Las Vegas operator. That's bad public policy. We urge the House to support the Committee's ITL motion."

Three of the Senate co-sponsors of the casino bill said they would work to convince House colleagues to overturn the committee report and pass a casino bill. Sens. Chuck Morse (R-Salem), Lou D'Allesandro (D-Manchester) and Jim Rausch (R-Derry) issued a joint statement:

"We are extremely disappointed the joint committee chose to oppose this bi-partisan bill that is so important to New Hampshire’s economic future. The majority of our citizens and Gov. Hassan support casino gaming, so we will continue to work diligently to convince the full House to pass SB 152."

In March, SB 152 was approved in the state Senate by a 16-8 vote. The bill as it's currently written calls for up to 150 table games and no more than 5,000 video lottery/slot machines at one casino location in the state.