The House Education Funding Committee took testimony on HB 659, a bill to establish a New Hampshire College Graduate Retention Incentive Program intended to encourage recent college graduates to remain and work in the state.

DRA senior financial analyst Lauren O’Sullivan told the panel the legislation is unclear on a number of technical points, chiefly whether the hiring incentive operates as a rebate or as a tax credit. "A rebate ... results in the state issuing a check once a claim is approved," O'Sullivan said, contrasting that with credits that reduce tax liability on a return and may carry forward or be transferable. She flagged other drafting gaps including whether the Department of Business and Economic Affairs or the Department of Revenue Administration would administer the program, whether awards are capped and which tax years are affected.

Supporters said the bill addresses an outflow of young workers. Andrew Horn, who testified on behalf of the prime sponsor, said New Hampshire loses a large share of graduates and the measure is intended to incentivize hires and internships to retain local talent. Horn said the bill would offer $5,000 in annual loan forgiveness for a graduate who commits to three consecutive years of in-state employment, with a stated maximum of $20,000 per individual — an item committee members flagged for clarification.

Committee members pressed for specifics. Representative Damon asked how a $5,000 annual award aligns with a $20,000 total cap, and O'Sullivan and the witness said drafting or oversight could explain the discrepancy. Questions also focused on whether education-sector employers such as public school districts would qualify: supporters said the bill's language lists education among high-need fields but that the sponsor should clarify whether public-school employers were intended to be eligible.

O’Sullivan advised the committee that fiscal-note treatment depends on whether the program is treated as a rebate or credit, how the program is capped and whether credits can be carried forward; she said DRA can absorb modest administrative burdens but cannot speak for the agency intended to run the program.

The committee closed the hearing after public testimony and questions; the prime sponsor was not present at the hearing. The panel did not take formal action on the bill at the hearing.