Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Military Spouse Employment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HB 64 to extend hiring and procurement preferences to military spouses and active-duty personnel
Summary
HB 64 would expand existing hiring-preference statutes to include military spouses and active-duty service members, and extend certain procurement purchase preferences to disabled veterans and military spouses; the Department of Defense liaison, DMAVS and Department of Labor offered technical comments and support.
Representative Terry Roy introduced HB 64, a bill to extend state and private hiring preferences to military spouses and active-duty service members and to expand purchase preferences for disabled veterans and military spouses in state procurement. "Preferences ... are a small gesture ... to help them establish and hopefully grow their businesses and stay in our state," Roy said.
Brent Fraser and department witnesses from the Department of Military Affairs and Veterans Services told the committee the department supports the measure as a way to improve economic security for veterans and families. "This effort also reinforces the New Hampshire veteran-friendly business network's efforts," Fraser said; the department asked to work with the sponsor on language that references the adjutant general’s role.
Melissa Ouellette, the New England regional liaison for the Department of Defense State Liaison Office, supported the bill and supplied national survey data supporting military-spouse employment initiatives: a 2021 DOD survey cited in testimony found 48% of active-duty spouses identified finding employment as a top problem during permanent change-of-station moves, and national figures were cited showing military-spouse unemployment around 21% for spouses actively seeking work.
The New Hampshire Department of Labor testified as neutral and flagged technical drafting issues: it questioned a statutory cross-reference (an apparent citation to RSA 21:50 that the department said actually lists service-connected-injury definitions) and noted current verification language under RSA 275-G appears limited to veterans and may not extend automatically to a newly defined military spouse without drafting adjustments.
Committee members asked whether preferences would override cost considerations in procurement and several witnesses and the sponsor said purchases would still be chosen on price and quality "all things being equal"; if a procurement otherwise favored a non-preference bidder on price, that price difference could control. Witnesses also said more detailed amending language could be developed before executive session. The committee closed the public hearing and scheduled follow-up work on technical language.
Why it matters: The bill targets employment and economic opportunities for military families — an issue that state and federal officials said affects readiness and family stability — and raises drafting questions about verification procedures and how procurement preferences would operate in practice.
