Written by Andrew Horn of Amherst, NH
 |
Executive Summary
HB 638-FN (Older Prisoner Parole) Notable for its potential impact on criminal justice reform, allowing certain older inmates serving life sentences without parole a chance at release under strict conditions.
HB 670-FN (Dog Attack Fines) Significant for its focus on public safety, by raising penalties against owners of dogs that attack or pose a nuisance.
HB 700-FN (Stalking Protective Orders) Important due to its changes to restraining order procedures and firearm surrender requirements in stalking cases.
HB 159-FN (Mental Health Firearms) Crucial because it closes a loophole in background checks by reporting specific mental health adjudications to the federal system.
HB 659-FN (College Grad Retention) Key for addressing workforce shortages and “brain drain,” offering incentives to keep graduates living and working in-state.
HB 665-FN-A (Free School Meals) Influential in tackling child hunger and improving educational outcomes by broadening access to free school meals.
HB 771-FN (Open Enrollment Schools) Far-reaching in its potential restructuring of public school enrollment funding, affecting district budgets and parental choices.
HB 491 (Alternative Education Funding) Pivotal for its aim to find new methods of paying for public education and reducing the reliance on property taxes.
HCR 10 (Jones Act Repeal) Noteworthy for its national economic implications, urging federal leaders to repeal a century-old maritime shipping regulation.
HCR 1 (Climate Policy Resolution) Controversial for its stance on climate action, calling for broad data consideration while many see an urgent need for stronger steps.
Quick Summaries - All Bills
House Criminal Justice And Public Safety
HB 638-FN (Docket) (2 Democratic sponsors):
Allows older prisoners serving life without parole to be eligible for release under certain criteria.
Online testimony: 118 support, 9 oppose.HB 670-FN (Docket) (4 Republican sponsors):
Raises minimum fines for attacks by nuisance or vicious dogs.
Online testimony: 8 support, 1 oppose.HB 700-FN (Docket) (8 Republican sponsors):
Revises restraining order procedures, including perjury penalties and firearm surrender conditions in non-domestic stalking cases.
Online testimony: 6 support, 514 oppose.HB 777 (Docket) (4 Republican sponsors):
Codifies the law enforcement accreditation commission to improve policing standards.
Online testimony: 1 support, 1 oppose.HB 778-FN (Docket) (3 Republican sponsors):
Authorizes detailing law enforcement training specialists for crowd control and other duties, with cost reimbursement.
Online testimony: 2 support, 2 oppose.HB 767-FN (Docket) (1 Republican sponsor):
Expands Department of Health and Human Services reporting requirements to law enforcement when child abuse or neglect is suspected.
Online testimony: 5 support, 2 oppose.HB 445 (Docket) (6 Republican sponsors):
Creates a study commission to examine the shortage of law enforcement officers and explore retention solutions.
Online testimony: 2 support, 3 oppose.HB 159-FN (Docket) (3 Bipartisan sponsors):
Authorizes reporting certain mental health adjudications to the federal firearm background check system and outlines processes for confiscation and restoration of firearm rights.
Online testimony: 133 support, 222 oppose.
House Education Funding
HB 659-FN (Docket) (1 Democratic sponsor):
Establishes a college graduate retention incentive program offering loan forgiveness, rebates, and business hiring incentives.
Online testimony: 12 support, 6 oppose.HB 770-FN (Docket) (3 Democratic sponsors):
Creates a tuition credit program for state colleges earned through community service hours.
Online testimony: 6 support, 7 oppose.HB 443 (Docket) (2 Bipartisan sponsors):
Removes “until a successor is appointed” language for higher education commission members, clarifying term lengths.
Online testimony: 6 support, 2 oppose.HB 718 (Docket) (1 Republican sponsor):
Requires the state board of education to report unfunded financial impacts on school districts when special education rules exceed minimum standards.
Online testimony: 4 support, 4 oppose.HB 771-FN (Docket) (5 Republican sponsors):
Modifies the open enrollment funding process, affecting tuition payments between sending and receiving districts.
Online testimony: 4 support, 89 oppose.HB 665-FN-A (Docket) (11 Democratic sponsors):
Expands free school meal eligibility to students at or below 300% of federal poverty guidelines, funded from the education trust fund.
Online testimony: 470 support, 20 oppose.HB 491 (Docket) (1 Republican sponsor):
Establishes a committee to explore alternative funding methods for public education to reduce dependence on local property taxes.
Online testimony: 7 support, 4 oppose.
House State-Federal Relations And Veterans Affairs
HCR 10 (Docket) (5 Republican sponsors):
A resolution calling on Congress to repeal the Jones Act, arguing it increases shipping and business costs.
Online testimony: 4 support, 6 oppose.HR 12 (Docket) (4 Republican sponsors):
Urges Congress to amend the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013 to prohibit government propagandizing of U.S. citizens.
Online testimony: 2 support, 3 oppose.HCR 1 (Docket) (4 Republican sponsors):
Calls for comprehensive data review in developing climate policy at all levels, stressing caution about economic impacts.
Online testimony: 5 support, 82 oppose.
In-Depth Analysis - All Bills
House Criminal Justice And Public Safety
HB 638-FN
AN ACT allowing an older prisoner serving a sentence of life without parole to be eligible for parole upon meeting certain criteria.
2 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. David Meuse (D), Rep. Buzz Scherr (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Eligibility for Release on Parole. Amend RSA 630:1-a, III to read as follows:
III. A person convicted of a murder in the first degree shall be sentenced to life imprisonment [and shall not be eligible for parole at any time]. Such person shall be eligible for release on parole in accordance with RSA 651-A:7-a.
2 New Section; Parole Eligibility; First Degree Murder. Amend RSA 651-A by inserting after section 651:7 the following new section:
651-A:7-a First Degree Murder Eligibility for Release on Parole.
I. A person convicted of a single offense under RSA 630:1-a, but not RSA 630:1, shall be immediately eligible for release on parole when that person is:
(a) Serving a sentence of life without parole;
(b) 60 years of age or older:
(c) Has served more than 18 years of that sentence; and
(d) Has not been found to have committed a Class A or Class B violation in the prison for which the person was disciplined within 10 years prior to date of eligibility.
II. A person eligible for release on parole under this section shall be accorded the same rights and process by the prison and the parole board as any inmate would have when eligible for parole.
Summary:
This bill allows prisoners serving a sentence of life without parole for first degree murder who are 60 years of age or older, have served a minimum of 18 years, and have demonstrated good behavior to be eligible for parole.
Argument For:
This bill is a step towards a more humane system, recognizing that individuals can change and that the financial burden of lifelong incarceration is substantial; these funds could be better allocated to community crime prevention, support services for survivors, and reentry programs for returning citizens.
Argument Against:
This bill is a step towards a more humane system, recognizing that individuals can change and that the financial burden of lifelong incarceration is substantial; these funds could be better allocated to community crime prevention, support services for survivors, and reentry programs for returning citizens.
Online Testimony
Currently, 118 people support and 9 people oppose the bill. 93% support of 127 people
Support
Research indicates that individuals often “age out” of criminal behavior. Those over 45 years old, who have spent 20 years in prison, present a very low risk of reoffending, particularly in terms of violent crime. The financial burden of continued incarceration is substantial; the Department of Corrections reported that the average annual cost per person for incarceration in the 2024 fiscal year was $78,542.
I believe it is essential to create meaningful parole opportunities for those aged 60 and above who have served at least 18 years in prison. Individuals who can demonstrate growth and rehabilitation, and who pose no threat to public safety, deserve a chance at release. The financial burden of continued incarceration is substantial; the Department of Corrections reported that the average annual cost per person for incarceration in the 2024 fiscal year was $78,542.
—Kori Karamanoogian, of Bedford
Support of this bill gives the parole board the chance to do its job, rather than ignore remorse, an amended life, positive contributions of the incarcerated person over a period of many years. It also allows for review of recommendations by victim or family and prosecutors, whose input helps achieve justice.
—Catherine McMahon, of Wolfeboro
My husband, Burt, has shared many stories with me about his time in prison, but one name always stands out—Gary Place. Burt has told me time and time again that if it weren’t for Gary, he wouldn’t be where he is today. When Burt hit rock bottom in 2007—incarcerated, lost, and forced to confront the damage his choices had caused—Gary was the person who helped him see that change was possible.
—Stephanie Burt, of Lake Butler, FL
Having the possibility of freedom would give incarcerated people the hope and initiative to better themselves and to become a benefit to society. The alternative of spending the rest of their lives in jail can cause the opposite - anger, frustration and uselessness. Gary Place is probably the most compassionate and non-judgmental person I have known. I am aware of his past and the crime he committed. It is my belief that Gary has atoned for what he did in 1983.
Gary Place is my oldest brother. He has been incarcerated for 42 years as of July 2025.. Since the day he walked to the Concord police station and turned himself in, he has done everything possible to rehabilitate himself with little to NO support from the current system. Gary has taken every mental health course available and now teaches or facilitates the following courses
—Carolyn Dickinson, of Charlotte, NC
Every conversation was meaningful. He has a way of relating and listening that is one of his best strength in my eyes. He actually cares. Gary was a Model inmate as long as i knew him and given the opportunity i believe he will be a Model citizen and asset to society as well.
—William Kapusta, of Casco, ME
As a family member of an inmate serving a life without parole sentence, I believe it is essential to create meaningful parole opportunities for those aged 60 and above who have served at least 18 years in prison. Individuals who can demonstrate growth and rehabilitation, and who pose no threat to public safety, deserve a chance at release. Life without parole represents a form of “walking death,” offering no hope for a future. Families and loved ones of those serving LWOP also endure this sentence by watching their loved one grow older and closer to death without hope of release.
I believe a person can be rehabilitated . I am living proof at such a young age from the tools , education and life-skills I was given in prison . Depending on the severity of the crime I believe there should be certain crimes exempt from this bill . Keeping these people imprisoned for longer then you have to requires alot of money that could be used in other areas of reintegration for prisoners so our community is safe.
—olivia fitzwater-duran, of Manchester
Gary has earned the support and respect of many, including his victim's sister and even his prosecutor. As an LWOP inmate, Gary is only required to stand for head count four times a day, but he chose to live a life of rehabilitation, self-discovery, and is committed to giving back to his peers and his community. Gary truly has mastered emotional intelligence.
Opposition
Greater than 60 years old, almost 20 years in jail, and somehow gets a pass on murder? Meanwhile has likely no support network, no way of getting a licenses or job, and is darn near old/medically unfit enough to go into the county home anyways. This may save the state a penny or two by kicking them out to the county, but it sure doesn't do the taxpayers of the landing county any favors.
This bill does no favors for convict who has missed his most work productive, reproductive years. Thrown into a world without any savings, social security earnings quarters, and inability to secure a job due to conviction. He would be better kept in the world he knows and copes with. It could be classified as unusual torture.
I don’t believe 60 is old enough to no longer be considered a danger. Many people at 60 are still athletic and active, and I believe this could cause dangerous situations for the public. Please don’t give murderers the chance at release simply because of their age.
I wouldn't wish any victim and victim's family to have to go through what I do, facing the killer every few years, reliving the crime over and over, then hoping some foolish parole board doesn't grant parole. 60 isn't old and I say that as someone that is 31. Just because someone is able to string together 24-36 months of "good" behavior doesn't mean they aren't a threat. It also doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Life without parole, means life without parole. If HB638 becomes law, how many will lose faith in our justice system?
In the US, many people are regretfully incarcerated for non-violent offenses. People who are guily of murder in the first degree are the main category of violent offenders who should be incarcerated and belong in prison. It is not for the House to try and change a sentence - life without parole - that was seen as fit and just by a judge and a jury of peers.
—Chiara Tosi-Nelson, of Claremont
This is utter nonsense. What New Hampshire needs is the death penalty; and for the penalty implemented within 30 days of any conviction.
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 670-FN
AN ACT raising the minimum fine for attacks by nuisance dogs.
4 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Len Turcotte (R), Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R), Rep. Lorie Ball (R), Sen. David Rochefort (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Penalties for Nuisance Dogs. Amend RSA 466:31-a to read as follows:
466:31-a Penalties.
…
II. … The forfeiture shall be in the amount as specified for the following violations:
(a) [$25] $100 for the first nuisance offense under RSA 466:31, II(a), (b), (c) or (d); [$100] $200 for the second or subsequent nuisance offense committed within 12 months of the first nuisance offense under RSA 466:31, II(a), (b), (c) or (d).
(b) [$50] $200 for the first menace offense under RSA 466:31, II(e) or (f); [$200] $400 for the second or subsequent menace offense committed within 12 months of the first menace offense under RSA 466:31, II(e) or (f).
(c) [$100] $400 for the first vicious offense under RSA 466:31, II(g). Additionally, the owner of the dog shall be liable for all medical bills sustained by the person who was attacked.
(d) [$400] $1,000 for the second or subsequent vicious offense committed within 12 months of the first vicious offense under RSA 466:31, II(g). Additionally, the owner of the dog shall be liable for all medical bills sustained by the person who was attacked.
III. Any person who pays a civil forfeiture specified in paragraph II 2 times in any 12-month period according to the records of the town or city clerk, may not pay a civil forfeiture for subsequent violations of RSA 466:31 in that 12-month period, but shall have those cases disposed of in district or municipal court. In the case of a vicious dog, as described by RSA 466:31, II(g), where its behavior presents a threat to public safety, immediate district court or municipal court proceedings [may] shall be initiated in lieu of the civil forfeiture.
Summary:
This bill increases the fines for nuisance, menace, and vicious dog offenses and mandates court proceedings instead of civil forfeiture for vicious dogs presenting a threat to public safety.
Argument For:
This bill increases penalties for irresponsible dog owners, especially in cases of repeated offenses or vicious behavior, potentially deterring future incidents and prioritizing public safety.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill might disproportionately affect low-income dog owners who may struggle to pay the increased fines, without necessarily addressing the root causes of dog aggression or nuisance behavior.
Online Testimony
Currently, 8 people support and 1 people oppose the bill. 89% support of 9 people
Support
I 100% support this bill. We have several neighbors who have dogs that run uncontained through the neighborhood, and despite me telling them that my dog, (who is walked on a leash), does not want their dog racing up to him, and will try to pull away, or defend himself, it falls on deaf ears.
—Wendi Tremblay, of Barrington
If I ever have vet bills from these dogs biting my dog, I will be very angry. If I ever have medical. bills for ME if I try to break up a fight, I'll be really angry. There should definitely be a fine for this "loose dog attitude." Thank You Mr. Turcotte for introducing this bill.
—Wendi Tremblay, of Barrington
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 700-FN
AN ACT relative to orders of protection.
8 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Kelley Potenza (R), Rep. Jose Cambrils (R), Rep. Julius Soti (R), Rep. JD Bernardy (R), Rep. Tom Mannion (R), Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Chapter; Civil Restraining Orders. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 539 the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 539-A
CIVIL RESTRAINING ORDERS
539-A:1 Civil Restraining Order; Firearms.
I. In any action in the superior court to grant a restraining order against any person, issued under the court's equitable jurisdiction and not according to any other provision of law, the court shall not require the restrained individual to surrender any firearm, ammunition, or deadly weapon unless:
(a) The person seeking the restraining order requests that relief in the petition; and
(b) The court finds that surrender of any firearms, ammunition, or deadly weapon is necessary to protect the safety of the person seeking the restraining order.
II. In any action under paragraph I, the court shall require the person seeking the restraining order to be informed and to sign acknowledging his or her understanding that any material false statement made in the petition may be prosecuted for perjury pursuant to RSA 641:1.
2 Stalking; Orders of Protection. Amend RSA 633:3-a, III-a to read as follows:
III-a. A person who has been the victim of stalking as defined in this section may seek relief by filing a civil petition in the district court in the district where the plaintiff or defendant resides. The court shall require the person filing the petition to be informed and to sign acknowledging his or her understanding that any material false statement made in the petition may be prosecuted for perjury pursuant to RSA 641:1. Upon a showing of stalking by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall grant such relief as is necessary to bring about a cessation of stalking. The types of relief that may be granted, the procedures and burdens of proof to be applied in such proceedings, the methods of notice, service, and enforcement of such orders, and the penalties for violation thereof shall be the same as those set forth in RSA 173-B. Notwithstanding this paragraph, if the court finds that there is no domestic violence as defined in RSA 173-B, the court shall not require the restrained individual to surrender any firearm, ammunition, or deadly weapon unless:
(a) The person seeking the order requests that relief in the petition; and
(b) The court finds that surrender of any firearms, ammunition, or deadly weapon is necessary to protect the safety of the person seeking the order.
Summary:
This bill requires individuals seeking certain protection orders to acknowledge perjury penalties for false statements and allows those in non-domestic violence situations to opt-out of firearm removal from the restrained party.
Potential Argument For:
This bill aims to balance the rights of individuals with the need for protection, ensuring due process while addressing safety concerns in restraining order cases.
Argument Against:
None
Online Testimony
Currently, 6 people support and 514 people oppose the bill. 99% oppose of 520 people
Support
Why are you going out of your way to make senseless changes to a stalking protection law when there are bigger issues to be taken on. Messing with this law is idiotic.
Opposition
This is written by people who don't believe stalking happens. This is written by people who believe that domestic violence is a 'home matter'. One episode of Dateline and you would know, that often the most dangerous time for someone trying to stop stalking is when you open your mouth. Surrendering firearms should absolutely be a requirement if a judge has found cause to issue an order.
—Jennifer Suitter, of Merrimack
The Office of the Child Advocate has concerns about HB700 relative to orders of protection. As written, the bill appears as though it could have a chilling effect on reporting by victims, and could endanger victims of stalking by requiring additional steps to removing a defendant's firearms.
—Lissa Mascio, of Concord who is State Agency Staff, representing NH Office of the Child Advocate
This bill also makes the assumption that victims who are being stalked by a neighbor or stranger are somehow in less danger. Under current law, judges have discretion when granting the removal of firearms and deadly weapons. This bill significantly raises the standard for how judges can make that determination, limiting their ability to adequately protect victims and grant life-saving relief.
—Mary Lou Paquette, of Concord
To ensure the safety of all people in our communities, is crucial to that our laws support taking victims’ reports at their word. It is already hard enough to experience and then discuss what happened. Research shows that as low as 2% of victims were untruthful. Victims should be treated with empathy and understood as the expert in their experience. We must limit stalkers’ access to weapons to prevent escalation and increase safety.
This bill is dangerous! This bill intimidates victims, limits judges' discretion and will, most certainly, result in deaths. Ask yourself which is more important? If someone's firearms are removed as a result of a protective order, it could limit their ability to exercise their Second Amendment right. If someone is murdered because the state allowed a perpetrator to keep their guns, that is a travesty and a breach of a creed that is also promised to all Americans: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
—Suzanne Carmichael, of Contoocook
This bill makes dangerous and unnecessary changes to New Hampshire's Stalking Statute, RSA 633:3-a. The “Stalkers’ Empowerment Act” will make it harder for the courts to remove deadly weapons from dangerous stalkers. It also adds language to NH’s stalking law that questions the credibility of victims. We need our legislators to prioritize policies that protect the public, not ones that make it easier for stalkers to terrorize and kill their victims.
—Sarah Shanahan, of North Hampton
The NH legislature has no business making it easier for stalkers to hang onto their guns. Stalking is a profoundly disturbing act, even when firearms or other physical threats are not involved. When a victim of stalking is frightened enough to seek a protective order, the sponsors of this bill apparently want courts to prioritize the perpetrator's ability to keep his weapons over the victim's safety.
—Kathleen McDonald, of Peterborough
HB700 would fail to support justice for the following reasons: Requiring proof that a stalking defendant has also engaged in domestic violence before removing their deadly weapons is illogical...HB700 would force courts to get the order wrong and lead to more people being shot or injured, not fewer.
HB700 will continue to tell survivors of stalking that they are not believed and put even more obstacles in their way--and this is all for a proven dangerous person to have access to a deadly weapon that, in 54% of cases, is used in inevitable homicide of said stalking victim.
I urge you to oppose HB700 as it would question the credibility of those filing orders of protection and weaken the court's ability to remove deadly weapons from stalkers. This bill would likely result in an increase of harm and even death of victims of domestic violence.
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 11:30 a.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 777
AN ACT codifying the law enforcement accreditation commission.
4 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Jeffrey Tenczar (R), Rep. Dennis Mannion (R), Sen. Regina Birdsell (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Subdivision; The New Hampshire Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission. Amend RSA 106-L by inserting after section 23 the following new subdivision:
The New Hampshire Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission
106-L:24 The New Hampshire Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission.
I. There is established the New Hampshire law enforcement accreditation commission. The commission shall be administratively attached to the New Hampshire police standards and training council for the purpose of improving the delivery of law enforcement services and building on established accountability and trust within New Hampshire communities through a voluntary state-based accreditation program based on nationally-accepted standards.
…
V. The commission shall, in accordance with applicable laws, publish accreditation standards; conduct assessments and otherwise monitor enrolled agencies to determine compliance with standards; grant, suspend, and revoke agency accreditation and re-accreditation; and perform other duties as required to implement and oversee this program.
VI. The commission may adopt rules and establish fees for the administration of this section in accordance with RSA 541-A.
VII. The commission may adopt and amend bylaws, consistent with law, for its internal management and control.
VIII. The commission may accept in the name of the state any and all donations or grants, both real and personal, from any governmental unit or public agency, or from any institution, person, firm, or corporation. The commission shall receive, utilize, and dispose of all donations and grants subject to budgetary provisions and according to the rules of the commission and consistent with the purposes or conditions of the donation or grant. The receipt of a donation or grant shall be noted in the annual report of the commission to the council. The report shall identify the donor, the nature of the donation or grant, and the condition of the donation or grant, if any. Any moneys received by the commission pursuant to this paragraph shall be deposited in the state treasury to the account of the council and shall not lapse.
IX. The commission may delegate to the director of police standards and training any powers and duties enumerated in this section.
Summary:
This bill codifies the law enforcement accreditation commission that was established by executive order to improve law enforcement services and accountability through a voluntary state-based accreditation program.
Potential Argument For:
This bill promotes enhanced law enforcement practices and public trust by formally establishing a voluntary accreditation program with nationally-accepted standards.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may create additional administrative burdens and costs for law enforcement agencies seeking accreditation, especially smaller departments.
Online Testimony
Currently, 1 people support and 1 people oppose the bill. 50% support of 2 people
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 778-FN
AN ACT authorizing the director of the police standards and training council to detail law enforcement training specialists employed by the council for law enforcement and crowd control services.
3 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Dennis Mannion (R), Sen. Regina Birdsell (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Paragraph; Police Standards and Training Council. Amend RSA 106-L:5 by inserting after paragraph XX the following new paragraph:
XX-a. The director may detail any law enforcement training specialist employed by the council for law enforcement and crowd control services for public and private events and for extra duty functions to be performed outside regular business hours and for which the council shall be reimbursed. While performing such services, the officers may enforce all criminal and motor vehicle laws of the state in which the services are being performed. The council shall establish a detail rate that includes compensation for the officers and reimbursement for the use of vehicles, employee benefits, and other incurred expenses.
Summary:
This bill authorizes the director of the police standards and training council to detail law enforcement training specialists employed by the council for law enforcement and crowd control services, with the council being reimbursed for these services.
Potential Argument For:
This bill allows for more flexible use of law enforcement training specialists, potentially enhancing public safety at events and during extra duty functions while ensuring the council is reimbursed for associated costs.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may overextend law enforcement training specialists, potentially diminishing their primary training responsibilities and raising concerns about their effectiveness in crowd control situations.
Online Testimony
Currently, 2 people support and 2 people oppose the bill. 50% support of 4 people
Opposition
please consider oppsing this bill, please
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 767-FN
AN ACT expanding requirements for reports to law enforcement by the department of health and human services.
1 sponsor, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. David Love (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Department Reporting Requirements. Amend RSA 169-C:38, I to read as follows:
I.(a) The department shall [immediately], by telephone or in person, immediately [refer] verbally report to an on duty officer of the local law enforcement agency in the community in which the acts of abuse are believed to have occurred all cases in which there is reason to believe that any person under the age of 18 years has been:
[(a)] (1) [sexually molested] Subjected to sexual contact or sexual penetration which can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification or the humiliation of the person being touched, or serious personal injury, as defined in RSA 632-A:1, III.
[(b)] (2) [ sexually] Sexually exploited;
[(c)] (3) [intentionally] Intentionally physically injured so as to cause serious bodily injury;
[(d)] (4) [physically] Physically injured by other than accidental means so as to cause serious bodily injury; [or]
(5) Physically injured by a parent or legal guardian by other than accidental means such that there are visible contusions inconsistent with reasonable physical discipline; or
[(e)] (6) [a] A victim of a crime[, to the local law enforcement agency in the community in which the acts of abuse are believed to have occurred].
(b) If no on duty officer is available to receive the verbal report, the department shall verbally report to the state police. The department shall also make a written report to the law enforcement agency within [48] 24 hours, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays [excluded] included. A copy of this report shall be sent to the office of the county attorney.
(c) Law enforcement shall not rely on the department to gather information for its investigation unless such reliance is required or necessitated by the standardized protocol for investigation developed under RSA 169-C:38-a.
2 Investigation; Reasons For Entry. Amend RSA 169-C:38, IV to read as follows:
IV. Law enforcement personnel or department employees who are trained caseworkers shall have the right to enter any public place, including but not limited to schools and child care agencies, for the purpose of conducting an interview with a child, with or without the consent or notification of the parent or parents of such child, if there is reason to believe that the child has been:
(a) [Sexually molested.] Subjected to sexual contact or sexual penetration which can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification or the humiliation of the person being touched, or serious personal injury, as defined in RSA 632-A:1, III.
(b) Sexually exploited.
(c) Intentionally physically injured so as to cause serious bodily injury.
(d) Physically injured by other than accidental means so as to cause serious bodily injury.
(e) A victim of a crime.
(f) Physically injured by a parent or legal guardian by other than accidental means such that there are visible contusions inconsistent with reasonable physical discipline.
(g) Abandoned.
[(g)] (h) Neglected.
Summary:
This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to immediately verbally report complaints of child crime, abuse, or neglect to law enforcement and create a written report within 24 hours, while also refining requirements for law enforcement and trained caseworkers to enter public places.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that law enforcement is immediately notified of potential child abuse cases, allowing for quicker intervention and protection of vulnerable children.
Argument Against:
This bill ensures that law enforcement is immediately notified of potential child abuse cases, allowing for quicker intervention and protection of vulnerable children.
Online Testimony
Currently, 5 people support and 2 people oppose the bill. 71% support of 7 people
Support
1000%
Opposition
This bill asks the unrealistic. It is impossible for DHHS personnel to KNOW a child was physically injured by a PARENT vs someone else. Visible contusions inconsistent with reasonable physical discipline are more likely inflicted by ANYONE OTHER THAN PARENT.
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 445
AN ACT establishing a study commission to examine the causes of and ways to alleviate the shortage of law enforcement officers in New Hampshire.
6 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R), Rep. Jeffrey Tenczar (R), Rep. Dennis Mannion (R), Sen. Sharon Carson (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Commission on Law Enforcement Recruitment and Retention; Commission Established. Amend RSA 105 by inserting after section 13-d the following new section:
105:13-e Commission on Law Enforcement Recruitment and Retention; Commission Established.
I. There is established a commission to study the causes of and ways to alleviate the shortage of law enforcement officers in New Hampshire.
II. Notwithstanding RSA 14:49, the members of the commission shall be as follows:
(a) A representative from the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, appointed by the association.
(b) A representative from the attorney general’s office, appointed by the attorney general.
(c) A representative of the university system of New Hampshire, appointed by the chancellor.
(d) A representative from New Hampshire Municipal Association, appointed by the association.
(e) A representative from the New Hampshire house of representatives appointed by the speaker of the house.
(f) A representative from the New Hampshire senate appointed by the president of the senate.
(g) A representative from the New Hampshire State Police Troopers Association, appointed by the association.
(h) A representative from the New Hampshire Police Association, appointed by the association.
(i) A representative from the New Hampshire retirement system board of trustees, appointed by the board.
(j) The director of the New Hampshire police standards and training council, or designee.
III. The commission's study shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) The current retirement system and how it compares to surrounding states.
(b) Possible modifications to make the retirement system more competitive.
(c) The possibility of a “class to cruiser” program with the university of New Hampshire where tuition waivers may be available for people who fulfill a commitment to serve for a specified number of years with a New Hampshire police department.
(d) A program that creates a partnership with the Department of Defense that would assist service members leaving the military in finding immediate employment in New Hampshire law enforcement.
(e) Any other suggestions the commission identifies that may assist in the retention or recruitment of officers in New Hampshire.
IV. The members of the study commission shall elect a chairperson from among the members. The first meeting of the commission shall be called by the house member. The first meeting of the commission shall be held within 45 days of the effective date of this section. A majority of the commission shall constitute a quorum.
V. The commission shall report its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the house clerk, the senate clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before the date of the commission's repeal.
2 Repeal. RSA 105:13-e, relative to the commission on law enforcement recruitment and retention, is repealed.
Summary:
This bill establishes a commission to study and propose solutions for the shortage of law enforcement officers in New Hampshire, outlining the commission's membership, duties, and reporting requirements, with a provision for its repeal after 18 months.
Argument For:
This bill is crucial because it addresses the pressing issue of law enforcement shortages in New Hampshire, providing a dedicated commission to thoroughly investigate the causes and propose solutions to enhance recruitment and retention, ultimately improving public safety and reducing strain on existing officers.
Argument Against:
This bill is crucial because it addresses the pressing issue of law enforcement shortages in New Hampshire, providing a dedicated commission to thoroughly investigate the causes and propose solutions to enhance recruitment and retention, ultimately improving public safety and reducing strain on existing officers.
Online Testimony
Currently, 2 people support and 3 people oppose the bill. 60% oppose of 5 people
Support
I served on the Citizens Advisory Board to the NH Correctional Facility for Women for 10 years. One of our biggest concerns was the staff shortage of correctional officers, necessitating mandatory overtime and additional expense. We know the problem exists with local police and state police too. This study commission is needed and should include looking at all levels of law enforcement, including the correctional officers at the prisons and Houses of Correction.
—Liz Tentarelli, of Manchester
Opposition
As written and including a House and Senate member who will be paid travel for this commission I oppose. Good stewards of our tax dollars, we should be. Otherwise, the premise is good. Just let the law enforcement professionals come up with it and present it to the legislature.
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 2:30 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 159-FN
AN ACT authorizing the state to report mental health data for firearms background check purposes and providing for processes for confiscation of firearms following certain mental health-related court proceedings and for relief from mental health-related firearms disabilities.
3 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Richard Lascelles (R), Rep. Jennifer Mandelbaum (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Short Title. This bill shall be known as "The Chief Bradley Haas Mental Health Firearms Reporting Act".
2 Sale of Firearms; Criminal History Record Check, Mental Health Record Check, and Protective Order Check. Amend RSA 159-D:1 to read as follows:
159-D:1 Sale of Firearms; Criminal History Record Check, Mental Health Record Check, and Protective Order Check. The department of safety may become the point of contact for the federal government for the purposes of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
3 New Chapter; Mental Health Reporting for Firearm Background Checks. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 159-F the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 159-G
MENTAL HEALTH REPORTING FOR FIREARM BACKGROUND CHECKS
159-G:1 Short Title. This chapter shall be known as “Bradley’s Law” in honor of retired Police Chief Bradley Haas who was shot and killed while defending the lives and safety of the patients and staff of the New Hampshire Hospital.
159-G:2 Mental Health Reporting Authorized. In compliance with the federal NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, Public Law 110-180 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Public Law 103-159, the New Hampshire judicial branch and the department of safety are authorized to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) records concerning persons who have been disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(4) because they have been:
I. Adjudicated as not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity;
II. Adjudicated as incompetent to stand trial and found by the court to be a danger to themselves or others pursuant to RSA 171-B:2, 135-E:5 or 135:17-a; or
III. Involuntarily committed to a mental health facility pursuant to RSA 135-C:34-54.
159-G:3 Entry Into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including the requirement of a closed hearing and file under RSA 135-C:43, when a judge orders a nonemergency involuntary admission pursuant to RSA 135-C:34-54 or a commitment pursuant to RSA 171-B:2, and the order is one that qualifies under 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(4), the court shall retain a record of the court order and promptly cause the disposition to be entered in the NICS Indices. When a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity, or incompetent to stand trial and found by the court to be a danger to himself or herself or others pursuant to RSA 135-E or 135:17-a, as provided in this section, the department of safety shall promptly cause that disposition to be entered in the NICS Indices, in accordance with paragraph II.
II. The court or the department of safety shall report only the person's name, an identifier signifying the applicable prohibition under 18 U.S.C. section 922(g), the person's social security number, and date of birth.
III. If a court determines that a person is not competent to stand trial and finds that the person is also a danger to themselves or others, but, after 90 days, the person is not committed pursuant to RSA 171-B:2, 135-C:34-54, or 135-E:5, upon the motion of any party or sua sponte, the court may transmit that finding to the department of safety for entry into the NICS Indices.
…
159-G:6 Exclusions.
I. Neither the court nor the department of safety shall transmit information on persons seeking voluntary treatment or on persons involuntarily hospitalized for assessment or evaluation.
II. Information the court or the department of safety causes to be transmitted to NICS pursuant to this chapter shall not be considered as public records pursuant to RSA 91-A.
III. The records entered into the NICS Indices pursuant to this chapter shall only be used for purposes of determining eligibility to purchase, possess, carry, or transfer a firearm or ammunition. Information furnished shall not include confidential medical or treatment records, confidential tax or financial data, or library records.
IV. Neither the court nor the department of safety shall submit the name of any person to NICS signifying a prohibition under 18 U.S.C. section 922(g) except pursuant to the processes outlined in this chapter.
159-G:7 Appointment of Attorney. Unless otherwise provided in statute, a person may be appointed an attorney by the court for the purposes of any hearing referred to in this chapter.
4 New Paragraph; Access to Governmental Records and Meetings; Exemptions. Amend RSA 91-A:5 by inserting after paragraph I-a the following new paragraph:
I-b. Information caused to be transmitted by the court to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System pursuant to RSA 159-G:5, II.
5 New Chapter; Relief from Disabilities. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 159-G the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 159-H
RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES
159-H:1 Relief from Disabilities Petition. Any person who has a non-emergency involuntary commitment under RSA 135-C:34-54 or has been found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial and found by the court to be a danger to himself or herself or others pursuant to RSA 171-B:2, 135-E:5 or 135:17-a, as outlined in RSA 159-G, and who is subject to the firearm disabilities of 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(4), may petition for a review of the person's mental capacity to possess or purchase a firearm no sooner than the following time frames. Individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity may file for relief with the court 6 months after the finding of not guilty by reason of insanity status, unless the person was committed to an institution pursuant to RSA 651:8-b, in which case the person may file for relief 15 days after absolute discharge. Individuals found incompetent to stand trial and found by the court to be a danger to themselves or others under RSA 135:17-a, as outlined in RSA 159-G, may file for relief with the court 6 months after the finding of incompetency, unless the person was committed to an institution pursuant to RSA 171-B:2 or RSA 135-C:34-54, in which case the person may file for relief 15 days from when an absolute discharge order has been filed with the probate court. A person committed under RSA 135-E:5 may petition for relief 15 days after absolute discharge.
159-H:2 Psychiatric Examination. Upon receipt of a petition for relief, the court shall schedule a hearing no later than 60 days after the date the petition was filed. Simultaneously, the court shall order an independent psychiatric examination be completed no more than 45 days from the date of the court's order. The independent psychiatrist shall provide the court with an opinion as to whether the person is disabled by a mental illness and is likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
…
8 Appropriation; New Hampshire Judicial Branch. The sum of $1 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, is hereby appropriated to the New Hampshire judicial branch for the cost of independent psychiatrist evaluations. The governor is authorized to draw a warrant for said sum out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
9 Repeal. RSA 126-AA:2, VI, relative to submission of information to NICS, is repealed.
10 Effective Date.
I. Sections 2 - 5 of this act shall take effect as provided in section 7 of this act.
II. The remainder of this act shall take effect 60 days after passage.
Summary:
This bill authorizes the state to report mental health data for firearms background check purposes, provides processes for confiscation of firearms following certain mental health-related court proceedings, and allows for relief from mental health-related firearms disabilities.
Argument For:
This bill is a reasonable, common-sense approach that could save lives by ensuring that individuals who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others due to mental health issues are not able to purchase firearms, aligning state practices with federal law and closing a dangerous loophole.
Argument Against:
This bill is a reasonable, common-sense approach that could save lives by ensuring that individuals who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others due to mental health issues are not able to purchase firearms, aligning state practices with federal law and closing a dangerous loophole.
Online Testimony
Currently, 133 people support and 222 people oppose the bill. 63% oppose of 355 people
Support
As a parent who lost their child to suicide by gun. I cautiously support this bill. I’m a little bit reluctant of having the information stored, but at the same time believe that if it can help save a life it makes sense to do so. Sadly, my 19-year-old purchased a gun on craigslist and used it within two weeks to end his life.
I treat patients at New Hampshire Hospital and see first hand then number of patients who had access to firearms prior to admission. I also see the number of patients admitted with suicidal and homicidal ideations- firearm access makes an attempt easier and more likely to be more successful. Please improve personal and public safety by passing HB159.
—Elizabeth Boucher, of Concord
Please support HB 159 because it allows background checks to deselect incompetent people from owning fire arms. Not everyone is competent and trustworthy. Those who do not past the competence and trustworthiness test should not own guns. You can help make the Granite state safer with this bill.
A data base, in this case the NICS, without good data has little value. This bill is very important as it makes sure the data is available so background checks can be truly effective.
Mental health is a key component of the gun violence epidemic in this country. This is one step along with more focus on recognition and treatment that can help curb violence in our communities and schools. This seems like a reasonable step to include in a background check prior to a gun purchase.
It should be a given that those a background check database include those identified as having mental illness. More often than not we hear after the fact that a shooter has had a history of mental illness.
—Jeanne Ludt, of Amherst who is, An Elected Official
I support thorough background checks before the purchase of a gun. A mental health background check would have saved my friend, a third grader, from being a victim of gun violence.
I am a Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner with prior experience as a Paramedic, Emergency Room nurse and Coast Guard Veteran. I support this bill and hope to see it become law and save lives.
Yes please try and make sure guns stay out of the hands of someone going through a mental health crisis. For their safety as well as the public’s
According to the current federal law, people who are involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility are already prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm. However, NH currently does not report those cases to NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System), thus making national firearm background checks inaccurate, incomplete, and ineffective.
Opposition
"....shall bot be infringed." 2nd Amendment to Our Bill of Rights. Criminals obtain firearms ILLEGALLY. Without privacy and private property there is no Liberty. This bill undermines medical privacy, targets law biding persons while infringing on their 2nd amendment rights.
2nd Amendment rights are our Constitutional Rights. This bill seeks to take away those rights. Issues with HB 159 Mental HEALTH – Why are people who are violently mentally ill being released from a facility that is supposed to be helping them, ALL while keeping them safe, and keeping society safe from them?
New Hampshire has historically low events for homicide and this law will do nothing to further reduce gun crimes. Gun ownership is the right of all NH residents under both the state and U.S. Constitutions. In rural communities, police coverage is limited and there is substantial response delay. Even in a city like Keene, NH police response time is about 6 minutes.
Persons with mental health issues should be treated in either inpatient or outpatient settings to return them to stable mental health. Those persons who show violence should not be released, they should be treated and kept safe, while at the same time this would keep the populace safe from them. Should they be released and lapse back into violence, the more readily available knives, switchblades, axes, hammers, glass bottles, motor vehicles, lighters and gasoline, and other weapons would be available to them as well.
I am deeply concerned about HB159, which seems to be a reintroduction of last year's HB1711. This bill infringes on our Second Amendment rights by allowing firearm confiscation based on mental health proceedings without proper due process. It stigmatizes individuals seeking mental health support and sets a dangerous precedent for gun control. Please vote NO on HB159 to protect the rights of New Hampshire citizens.
Id like to submit my opposition of this bill. I feel it violates not only 2nd Amendment but also the 6th Amendment by stripping someone of their right to a fair and speedy trial. From there I feel it violates the 5thAmendment wit no fair and speedy trial the individual also had no Due Process. I feel this Bill is nothing more than typical Red Flag laws,. Tyrannical by design.
I have no trust in the federal governments ability to restrain themselves from abusing, selling, cross referencing, matching to commercial databases, drivers license records, facial recognition... The feds are data pirates and keystone kops on security. I want NOTHING reported to the octopus of federal data snoops that will eventually end up sold, stolen, or weaponized politically.
I am writing to express my deep concern and strong opposition to House Bill 159 (HB159), which appears to be a reintroduction of last year’s HB1711. As a U.S. Air Force Veteran and a physician, I have dedicated my life to protecting both the constitutional rights and the well-being of my fellow citizens. This bill threatens both.
If there are "violent" mentally ill people, then why are they being released from a mental health insititute in the first place? Instead, they should be kept there so they can get the help that they really need. This would also keep them safe and and would keep society safe from their "violence". If there is any concern that a "violent" mentally ill person will commit acts of violence against innocent Granite Staters, then why are they being let out of an institute to commit those acts of violence?
I am deeply concerned about HB159, which seems to be a reintroduction of last year's HB1711. This bill infringes on our Second Amendment rights by allowing firearm confiscation based on mental health proceedings without proper due process. It stigmatizes individuals seeking mental health support and sets a dangerous precedent for gun control.
—Theodore Sattley, of Atkinson
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 3:15 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
House Education Funding
HB 659-FN
AN ACT establishing the New Hampshire college graduate retention incentive program.
1 sponsor, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Sanjeev Manohar (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Subdivision; New Hampshire College Graduate Retention Incentive Program. Amend RSA 12-O by inserting after section 76 the following new subdivision:
New Hampshire College Graduate Retention Incentive Program
…
12-O:78 Student Loan Forgiveness Program.
I. The state shall provide up to $5,000 annually in student loan forgiveness to eligible graduates who:
(a) Are employed full-time in New Hampshire in an eligible high-need field.
(b) Commit to a minimum of 3 consecutive years of employment within the state.
II. The total forgiveness amount shall not exceed $20,000 per individual.
III. The DBEA shall establish application procedures and verify eligibility.
IV. Funds will be disbursed directly to the loan servicer.
12-O:79 Graduation Incentive Rebate Program. Graduates who live and work in New Hampshire shall be eligible for a $1,000 annual cash rebate for up to 5 years.
I. To be eligible for the graduation incentive rebate program the graduate shall:
(a) Be employed full-time in New Hampshire; and
(b) Maintain residency within the state.
II. The DBEA shall process applications and disburse payments.
III. Verification of employment and residency shall occur annually.
12-O:80 Business Hiring Incentives.
I. Participating businesses shall receive a $500 rebate per hired New Hampshire graduate, applied to the business enterprise tax (BET). Rebates are available for up to 2 years per hire.
II. The state shall reimburse participating businesses 50 percent of wages paid to interns from New Hampshire institutions, up to $5,000 per intern annually.
III. Priority shall be given to small- and medium-sized businesses.
12-O:81 New Hampshire College Graduate Retention Incentive Program Fund.
I. There is hereby established a fund to be known as the New Hampshire college graduate retention incentive program fund. Any appropriations received shall be deposited in the fund. Moneys in the fund and any interest earned on the fund shall be used for the purpose of encouraging retention of college graduates in New Hampshire and shall not be used for any other purpose. The commissioner of the department of business and economic affairs (DBEA) shall oversee expenditures from the fund. The moneys in the fund shall be continually appropriated and nonlapsing.
II. In addition to any moneys appropriated, the New Hampshire college graduate retention incentive program fund may consist of an annual appropriation, as determined by the general court, to be awarded in accordance with rules adopted by the commissioner of the DBEA.
III. Fifteen percent of annual profits from the New Hampshire lottery shall be allocated to the New Hampshire college graduate retention incentive program fund.
IV. The DBEA shall pursue federal funding opportunities, including grants under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).
V. Public-private partnerships and reallocation of unused workforce development funds shall supplement program costs.
12-O:82 Reporting. The DBEA shall publish an annual report detailing program participation, costs, and outcomes. A comprehensive review of program efficacy shall be conducted every 5 years by the DBEA.
12-O:83 Rulemaking. The DBEA, in consultation with the New Hampshire lottery commission and the department of revenue administration, shall have the authority to adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, necessary for implementation of this subdivision.
2 New Subparagraph; Application of Receipts. Amend RSA 6:12, I(b) by inserting after subparagraph (399) the following new subparagraph:
(400) Monies deposited in the college graduate retention incentive program fund established under RSA 12-O:81.
3 Repeal. The following are repealed:
I. RSA 12-O:77 through 83, relative to the New Hampshire college graduate retention incentive program.
II. RSA 6:12, I(b)(400), relative to the New Hampshire college graduate retention incentive program fund.
Summary:
This bill establishes the New Hampshire College Graduate Retention Incentive Program to provide student loan forgiveness, graduation incentive rebates, and business hiring incentives, funded in part by lottery profits, to retain college graduates in New Hampshire.
Argument For:
This bill strategically addresses the challenge of retaining college graduates in New Hampshire by offering a comprehensive package of incentives, including student loan forgiveness, graduation rebates, and business hiring incentives, to encourage graduates to live and work in the state, ultimately boosting the state's economy and workforce.
Argument Against:
This bill strategically addresses the challenge of retaining college graduates in New Hampshire by offering a comprehensive package of incentives, including student loan forgiveness, graduation rebates, and business hiring incentives, to encourage graduates to live and work in the state, ultimately boosting the state's economy and workforce.
Online Testimony
Currently, 12 people support and 6 people oppose the bill. 67% support of 18 people
Support
I am currently a freshman at UNH in the Hamel Scholars program. I would not have stayed in New Hampshire for school had I not received my Hamel scholarship. Therefore, I can personally attest that scholarships are a necessary component of retaining youth talent and labor in the state. For this reason, I support the creation of a college retention fund.
Opposition
No payment schemes or debt forgiveness to bait college graduates. If that is only carrot, they will leave anyhow later after 3 years. It is a failed strategy. No to baiting employers either; If graduate-hire does not already appeal to them, they will bail when payment is done. This would create another layer of government to "manage" the give-away.
I totally oppose this Bill. Who proposes something like this? This i s pure Communism. This is not the role of the State in any way shape or form. Businesses can do what they need to do to retain talent. Students need to learn that being a responsible adult means paying their debts. Graduates heed to understand they are responsible for themselves and the State of New Hampshire should not be stealing money from someone just to give it to new graduates or anyone else for that matter.
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 205-207 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 770-FN
AN ACT relative to establishing a program to earn tuition credits for state of New Hampshire higher education institutions through community service.
3 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Kristina Schultz (D), Rep. Stephen Woodcock (D), Rep. Hope Damon (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Tuition Credits for State of New Hampshire Higher Education Institutions Through Community Service. Amend RSA 21-N by inserting after section 8-e the following new section:
21-N:8-f Tuition Credits for State of New Hampshire Higher Education Institutions Through Community Service.
I. The department of education shall establish and administer a program to provide tuition credits for state institutions of higher education earned through community service. The program, known as the "triple win program", shall provide tuition credits to eligible high school students and post-secondary education students. The credits may be used for tuition at participating institutions of higher education. Tuition credits shall be distributed based on available funding in accordance with this section and rules adopted thereunder.
II. The program shall be available to all high school and post-secondary education students attending public educational institutions in New Hampshire. To be eligible for a tuition credit, the student must be attending a public New Hampshire high school or be enrolled in a public institution of higher education in New Hampshire.
III. A student who volunteers 100 hours in one calendar year at an approved volunteer site in New Hampshire, such as a nursing home, food bank, or homeless shelter, shall be eligible for a tuition credit of $2,500 a year. An eligible student may receive a maximum of 8 tuition credits, over an 8 year period, totaling $20,000 in tuition credits.
…
2 New Subparagraph; Dedicated Fund; Triple Win Fund. Amend RSA 6:12, I(b) by inserting after subparagraph (399) the following new paragraph:
(400) Moneys deposited in the triple win fund under RSA 21-N:8-f.
Summary:
This bill establishes a program within the department of education to provide eligible New Hampshire students with tuition credits at state higher education institutions in exchange for community service.
Potential Argument For:
This bill incentivizes community service among students, creating a potential workforce for volunteer organizations and decreasing the financial burden of higher education.
Argument Against:
This bill limits volunteer tuition credits exclusively to public institutions, which critics view as unfair to private school students and a taxpayer-funded giveaway that devalues genuine service. It also risks reducing volunteerism to a transaction, undermining the intrinsic motivation and scholarly value of true community engagement.
Online Testimony
Currently, 6 people support and 7 people oppose the bill. 54% oppose of 13 people
Opposition
While it is reasonable to limit tuition credits to in-state public institutions, volunteerism should be encouraged among all high school students including private schools
Another tax revenue government give-away concept. Also, community service is hardly scholastic, greatly diminishing the value of the degree.
This Bill is nothing more than the State of New Hampshire paying someone's tuition. Worse than that, this Bill lessens the value of volunteer work. The use of the "triple win" is EVIL.
Community service is already incorporated in high school graduation expectations for most NH schools, but community service should be just that- service. Not working for a grade or other rewards like course credits.
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 10:15 a.m. in Room 205-207 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 443
AN ACT relative to terms of appointed members on the higher education commission.
2 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R), Sen. David Watters (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Division of Educator Support and Higher Education. Amend RSA 21-N:8-a, II(b) to read as follows:
(b) The terms of appointed members, except as otherwise indicated above, shall be for 5 years [and until a successor is appointed and qualified]. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term.
Summary:
This bill modifies the term lengths for appointed members of the higher education commission by removing the phrase 'and until a successor is appointed and qualified'.
Potential Argument For:
This bill clarifies the terms of membership for members of the higher education commission, potentially streamlining the appointment process.
Argument Against:
None
Online Testimony
Currently, 6 people support and 2 people oppose the bill. 75% support of 8 people
Opposition
Why should appointed members on the higher education commission get 5 year term limits when paras, teachers, specialists and administrators themselves only get 1 year term limits? Five years allows them WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to much freedom and autonomy. They need to be checked and controlled, just like the people who are actually working with the children of New Hampshire.
—Emily Darby, of East Kingston
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 205-207 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 718
AN ACT requiring the state board of education to report the unfunded financial impact to school districts for rules adopted by the board which exceed state or federal minimum standards.
1 sponsor, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Rick Ladd (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Special Education; Rules Exceeding State or Federal Minimum Requirements. Amend RSA 186-C:16-c, I(a) to read as follows:
(a) For each rule or proposed rule contained in the report, the state board shall include the rule number, the nature of the rule, any state minimum requirement exceeded, any federal minimum requirement exceeded, the unfunded financial impact on local school districts for rules exceeding state or federal minimum requirements, and the reasons for exceeding those minimum requirements.
Summary:
This bill mandates the state board of education to report the unfunded financial impact on local school districts resulting from special education rules that surpass state or federal minimum requirements.
Potential Argument For:
This bill promotes transparency and accountability in special education funding by identifying the financial burden placed on local school districts due to state mandates that exceed minimum requirements.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may create additional administrative burden for the state board of education and could potentially lead to decreased local control over special education programs.
Online Testimony
Currently, 4 people support and 4 people oppose the bill. 50% support of 8 people
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 11:30 a.m. in Room 205-207 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 771-FN
AN ACT relative to funding for open enrollment schools.
5 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Katy Peternel (R), Rep. Rick Ladd (R), Rep. Kevin Verville (R), Rep. Paul Terry (R), Sen. David Rochefort (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Education; Open Enrollment Schools; Definitions. Amend RSA 194-D:1, I to read as follows:
I. "Open enrollment public school", [or] "open enrollment school", or "open enrollment program" means any public school which, in addition to providing educational services to pupils residing within its attendance area or district, chooses to accept pupils from other attendance areas within its district and from outside its district.
2 Education; Open Enrollment Schools; Funding. Amend RSA 194-D:5 to read as follows:
194-D:5 Funding.
I. There shall be no tuition charge for any pupil attending an open enrollment school located in that pupil's resident district. For an open enrollment school authorized by a receiving [the] school district, the pupil's sending [resident] district shall pay the receiving district [to such school] an amount equal to not less than 80 percent of the sending [that] district's average cost per pupil as determined by the department of education using the most recent available data as reported by the sending district to the department.
II. In accordance with current department of education standards, the funding and educational decision-making process for children with disabilities attending a chartered public or open enrollment school shall be the responsibility of the school district and shall retain all current options available to the parent and to the school district.
[III. Any federal or other funding available in any year to a sending district shall, to the extent and in a manner acceptable to the funding source, be directed to an open enrollment school in a receiving district on an eligible per pupil basis.]
III. [IV.] The commissioner of the department of education shall apply for all federal funding available to open enrollment schools [under the No Child Left Behind Act, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,] or other federal [source] sources of funds. The commissioner shall expend any such funds received in a manner acceptable to the funding source.
IV. [V.] A sending district may provide funds, services, equipment, materials, or personnel to an open enrollment school, in addition to the amounts specified in this section in accordance with the policies of the sending school district.
V. [VI.] An open enrollment school may accept pupils at tuition rates at less than the amounts established by this chapter.
VI. [VII.] An open enrollment school may receive financial aid, private gifts, grants, or revenue as if it were a school district.
3 Education; Open Enrollment Schools; Budgets. Amend RSA 194-D:6 to read as follows:
194-D:6 Budgets. Each school district shall establish a line item in their operating budget, on an annual basis, reflecting estimated expenditures for open enrollment school tuition [That portion of a school district's estimated expenditures on open enrollment school tuition shall be shown as a separate line item in a school district's budget].
Summary:
This bill modifies the funding mechanism for open enrollment schools, allowing for open enrollment programs, clarifying funding responsibilities between sending and receiving districts, and requiring school districts to include open enrollment tuition costs as a line item in their operating budgets.
Argument For:
This bill refines the open enrollment process and funding, potentially increasing school choice options for families and ensuring a clearer allocation of resources between districts. It may encourage more efficient use of educational funds by allowing parents to select the best educational fit for their children.
Argument Against:
This bill refines the open enrollment process and funding, potentially increasing school choice options for families and ensuring a clearer allocation of resources between districts. It may encourage more efficient use of educational funds by allowing parents to select the best educational fit for their children.
Online Testimony
Currently, 4 people support and 89 people oppose the bill. 96% oppose of 93 people
Support
Strongly support this Bill
Opposition
One of my primary concerns is the financial burden this bill places on sending districts. The requirement that sending districts pay at least 80% of the average cost per pupil to receiving open enrollment schools creates a financial imbalance. In some cases, this could drain resources from districts that are already underfunded, leaving fewer resources to meet the needs of their own students.
This bill also raises concerns about the potential disruption of services for students with disabilities. By placing the financial responsibility for special education services on the sending district, rather than the receiving district, it risks creating a situation where students with special needs are left with inadequate services or face inconsistencies in their educational experience.
This bill also introduces changes that might undermine transparency and accountability. While transparency in budgeting is crucial, there is a risk that the financial complexities introduced by open enrollment could create confusion and make it difficult to track where funds are allocated.
As a public school teacher, I am scared of what this bill will do to my school. I am fortunate to work in a district with support from the public, as well as have access to many different resources. Approval of this bill could drastically increase class sizes while also decreasing funding.
—Chelsea Montana, of Nottingham
If you want Nh public schools to deliver excellence, you cannot pack them with volume. Class sizes will be packed to 30 kids each; curriculum, teaching faculty, and all resources will be stretched to the absolute limit. Currently, the graduating class of Exeter High School has students that are attending Brown, West Point, RIT, Penn State, and more.
—Emily Darby, of East Kingston
This bill takes local control away from school districts and does not account for area agreements a school district has with another district, An Area Agreement is a 10 or more years contract ensuring a set number of students from one district attends the Area Agreement school.
Seems to me that this open enrollment bill violates a contract between two districts and will wreck destruction on school budgeting let alone force property taxes to be sent outside of a district. This is a bad bill. Unless the State steps forward and is covering all the costs, then open enrollment would have less of an impact on local school districts.
I disagree with the NH Department of Education’s position in the fiscal note that HB 771 “will create a downward pressure on the cost per pupil of education as the resident district will retain 20% of the district average cost per pupil with no educational responsibility for that student.” The average cost of buildings and outdoor athletic facilities remains fixed no matter how many students are attending and roughly equals 20% of local school district expenditures.
—Leslie Vogt, of Pittsfield who is An Elected Official
This “open enrollment” bill looks like a sneak attempt to provide a voucher-like program for public school students. It strips local school boards (and taxpayers) of fiscal control of expenditures, and parents of involvement in their child’s education.
Please do not allow this bill to pass. As a parent of young children and a second grade teacher this is not going to solve any problems, it is only going to make new ones. There are bigger issues that should be addressed like equitable funding for schools/districts, affordable housing, teachers salaries, the teacher shortage are just a few of those issues.
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 205-207 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 665-FN-A
AN ACT relative to eligibility for free school meals.
11 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Muriel Hall (D), Rep. Patricia Cornell (D), Rep. David Luneau (D), Rep. Stephen Woodcock (D), Rep. Megan Murray (D), Rep. Peggy Balboni (D), Rep. Loren Selig (D), Rep. Hope Damon (D), Rep. Eleana Colby (D), Rep. James Newsom (D), Sen. Tara Reardon (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Schools; Food and Nutrition Programs; School Lunch Eligibility. Amend RSA 189:11-a, I to read as follows:
I.(a) Each school board shall make at least one meal available during school hours to every pupil under its jurisdiction. Such meals shall be served without cost [or at a reduced cost to any child who meets federal income eligibility guidelines] to any child whose annual household income is less than or equal to 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines as updated annually in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under 42 U.S.C. section 9902(2). The state board of education shall ensure compliance with this section and shall establish minimum nutritional standards for such meals as well as income guidelines set for the family size used in determining eligibility for free and reduced price meals. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the operation of both a breakfast and lunch program in the same school.
(b) All costs for the school meals program under subparagraph (a), in addition to sums allocated under RSA 186:13, XI, shall be funded by disbursements from the department of education to the school districts, made from funds appropriated for such purpose from the education trust fund. The amount necessary to fund this paragraph is hereby appropriated to the department from the education trust fund created under RSA 198:39. The governor is authorized to draw a warrant from the education trust fund to satisfy the state's obligation under this paragraph.
2 New Subparagraph; Education Trust Fund; School Meals. Amend RSA 198:39, I by inserting after subparagraph (n) the following new subparagraph:
(o) To fund disbursements for school meals under RSA 189:11-a.
Summary:
This bill increases eligibility for free school meals to children whose household income is less than or equal to 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines and funds the additional costs from the education trust fund.
Argument For:
This bill would ensure that more children have access to nutritious meals, which is essential for their growth, development, and academic success, as numerous studies show that adequate nutrition supports better learning, physical, and mental health. Furthermore, providing free lunches to more students will increase children's ability to learn and thrive, improving attendance rates, student behavior, and boosting the financial health of the state in the long-term.
Argument Against:
This bill would ensure that more children have access to nutritious meals, which is essential for their growth, development, and academic success, as numerous studies show that adequate nutrition supports better learning, physical, and mental health. Furthermore, providing free lunches to more students will increase children's ability to learn and thrive, improving attendance rates, student behavior, and boosting the financial health of the state in the long-term.
Online Testimony
Currently, 470 people support and 20 people oppose the bill. 96% support of 490 people
Support
HB665 would increase eligibility for free school lunches to families at up to 300% of the federal poverty level. Currently, free and reduced-price meals in New Hampshire are capped at 185% of the poverty level, or $55,500 of combined income for a family of four, under the Federal lunch program.
—Caroline Herold, of Merrimack
If we have money for vouchers we have money to feed hungry kids. Aside from the educational benefits can you imagine being a hungry kid? With no way to fix it yourself? It’s inhumane. We’re better than that.
I am a former school nurse. I saw many needs and under privileged families. Children cannot learn if they are hungry. Some parents cannot afford to adequately feed their children. Children are our future.
Our support of the nutrition of Granite State children is an investment in our state's future workforce. With rising food costs (only going to rise more with Trump's tariffs and other policies!), food insecurity is a real issue for many families. The managers of local food pantries and food banks across the state have seen sizable increases in need over the past few years.
—Rachel Barclay, of Litchfield
I have worked in schools most of my professional career and see the importance of school lunch for all children. Please support this important bill. If we can increase the eligibility for school vouchers up to 350% of poverty level then surely we can increase the level for free school lunch up to 300%.
Please vote to increase the eligibility for free school meals to household incomes up to 300 percent of federal poverty guidelines and provide funding from the education trust fund for the additional costs. Food prices are rising and expected to continue rise. Can you imagine feeding a family with 4 children with an income of $55K?
—Diane Schaefer, of Portsmouth
As a mom of 3, grandparent to 5, a Registered Nurse of 47 years and a past school nurse of 11 years, I support passing this bill. The benefits of feeding children before and during the school day have been proven. Child cannot learn when they are hungry or worried if they will have food at home. Families are struggling in so many way.
I am a pediatrician who has practiced in NH for 25 years. Ensuring the children of our State are well fed is critical to their academic success, growth and development. With the Federal government transferring more funds from the working and middle classes to the wealthiest, state and local government are left to make the needed investments to ensure our children are adequately nourished and educated.
I am a retired elementary school teacher. I have seen first hand the benefit of a full belly when going through the learning process. HB665 would increase eligibility for free school lunches to families at up to 300% of the federal poverty level. Students learn better when they are eating well.
—Stephanie Russell, of Raymond
Many years ago, I worked in the library and substitute taught at Sutton Elementary School. I saw how not having lunch affected children. Sometimes, they tried to brush it off, saying they weren't hungry. When my daughters were at Concord High School, they often brought friends home after school. Many of these kids were famished, and we fed them.
Opposition
I oppose this bill as does not support education for all
—Carol Caporale, of Litchfield
There are better uses for scarce education funding than providing free meals to middle-class kids who can afford them
Sponsors desire larger government spending for crappy government food. Maintain qualification as federal income eligibility guidelines as they are. Stop the nanny-state socialism which removes parental responsibility.
Parents are responsible for their children. If parents are not taking care of their children that needs addressing, but not by stealing money from all the residents of NH and giving it only to some chosen others. The entire program needs to end.
Oppose bill to reduce special education
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 1:45 p.m. in Room 205-207 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 491
AN ACT establishing a committee to study alternative funding methods for public education and how to reduce its reliance on local real estate property taxes.
1 sponsor, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Walter Spilsbury (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Committee Established. There is established a committee to study how New Hampshire funds public education and how to reduce its reliance on local real estate property taxes.
2 Membership and Compensation.
I. The members of the committee shall be as follows:
(a) Five members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, 2 from the ways and means committee, 2 from the education committee, and one from the finance committee.
(b) Four members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate.
II. Legislative members of the committee shall receive mileage at the legislative rate when attending to the duties of the committee.
3 Duties. The committee shall make recommendations for rebalancing and changing available revenue sources and assess the manner in which the state now funds public general education, with a specific focus on the impacts of over-burdening the local real property tax.
4 Chairperson; Quorum. The members of the study committee shall elect a chairperson from among the members. The first meeting of the committee shall be called by the first-named house member. The first meeting of the committee shall be held within 45 days of the effective date of this section. A majority of the members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.
5 Report. The committee shall report its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the house clerk, the senate clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before November 1, 2025.
6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Summary:
This bill establishes a committee to study alternative funding methods for public education and how to reduce its reliance on local real estate property taxes.
Argument For:
This bill seeks to address the over-reliance on local property taxes for funding public education by establishing a study committee to explore alternative revenue sources and make recommendations for rebalancing the state's funding model.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill might be criticized for creating another study committee without guaranteeing concrete action or solutions to the complex issue of education funding.
Online Testimony
Currently, 7 people support and 4 people oppose the bill. 64% support of 11 people
Support
I support finding other funding for schools other than property taxes.
I get the need for this, but the bigger issue I observe is answering "what is the core education to be delivered by the government?" personally, I would put effort into answering this question. Once this question is answered, then the funding can be worked. I also might put a member(s) of the public on this effort (no, not me).
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 2:30 p.m. in Room 205-207 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
House State-Federal Relations And Veterans Affairs
HCR 10
A RESOLUTION calling for the repeal of the Jones Act.
5 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Michael Moffett (R), Rep. Dan McGuire (R), Rep. Rich Nalevanko (R), Rep. Mike Belcher (R), Rep. Tom Mannion (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
Resolved by the House or Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the New Hampshire House of Representatives supports a termination of the Jones Act, and that copies of this resolution be delivered to the president of the United States, the majority and minority leaders in both houses of Congress, to the New Hampshire congressional delegation, and to the governor of the state of New Hampshire.
Summary:
This bill supports the termination of the Jones Act, arguing it inflates shipping costs, harms national security, increases energy costs, creates environmental costs, inflates business costs, and hinders the American shipbuilding industry.
Argument For:
This bill aims to eliminate the Jones Act, which has outlived its purpose and artificially inflates the prices of goods, thereby negatively impacting consumers and businesses.
Argument Against:
This bill aims to eliminate the Jones Act, which has outlived its purpose and artificially inflates the prices of goods, thereby negatively impacting consumers and businesses.
Online Testimony
Currently, 4 people support and 6 people oppose the bill. 60% oppose of 10 people
Support
I enthusiastically support erasing Jones Act. This artifact of history has not only out-lived its purpose but is presently an artificial cause of high pricing goods.
1000% support this. Is three an opportunity to collaborate with other States on this? I suggest striking lines 9 and 10 because there is no data to support this statement AND the new Administration is moving away from this aspect.
I am writing to express my support for NH HCR10. This resolution urges Congress to increase federal funding for special education services, which is crucial for alleviating the financial burden on local districts and reducing property taxes in New Hampshire. The current shortfall in federal funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has placed a significant strain on our local communities.
Opposition
I am writing to oppose this bill. I work in the maritime industry and have been for the past 12 years. If the Jones Act is overturned there is a chance I could lose my employment along with several other Merchant Mariners. This bill would allow non US citizens to take jobs away from US citizens.
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 206-208 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HR 12
A RESOLUTION urging Congress to amend the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013.
4 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Mike Belcher (R), Rep. Barbara Comtois (R), Rep. Robert Wherry (R), Rep. Yury Polozov (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
Resolved by the House of Representatives:
That we, the elected members of the house of representatives of the state of New Hampshire, hereby call on federal authorities to reinstate the prior, longstanding prohibition on propagandizing the American people by making necessary amendment to the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.
Let it be further resolved that copies of this resolution be sent to the members of the New Hampshire Congressional delegation, the governor, the president of senate, the speaker of the house, and chair of the house state-federal relations committee.
Summary:
This bill urges Congress to amend the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013 to reinstate the prohibition on government propagandizing of the American people.
Argument For:
This bill is important because the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013, by repealing the prohibition on government propagandizing, has led to negative consequences such as the government adopting preferred narratives and positioning itself as the arbiter of truth, thereby harming the American people.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could be viewed negatively by those who believe that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act allows for important information dissemination and that restricting it would hinder the government's ability to communicate effectively with the public.
Online Testimony
Currently, 2 people support and 3 people oppose the bill. 60% oppose of 5 people
Support
I enthusiastically support restoring and amending prohibition on propagandizing the American people.
Ditto.
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 10:45 a.m. in Room 206-208 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HCR 1
A RESOLUTION calling for policymakers locally and nationally to fully consider all relevant information and factors pertaining to climate change before pursuing courses of action that could adversely affect any economy or environment.
4 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Michael Moffett (R), Rep. Dan McGuire (R), Rep. Jeanine Notter (R), Rep. Julius Soti (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: that the New Hampshire house of representatives supports the proper consideration of all relevant data and perspectives as climate policy is developed on every level throughout the United States of America.
Summary:
This bill expresses the New Hampshire House of Representatives' support for considering all relevant data and perspectives in the development of climate policy at every level throughout the United States.
Argument For:
This bill promotes a common-sense approach to climate matters by encouraging policymakers to consider all relevant and factual information, protecting citizens by acknowledging the crucial connection between energy and the economy.
Argument Against:
This bill promotes a common-sense approach to climate matters by encouraging policymakers to consider all relevant and factual information, protecting citizens by acknowledging the crucial connection between energy and the economy.
Online Testimony
Currently, 5 people support and 82 people oppose the bill. 94% oppose of 87 people
Support
This is an even-handed, common sense, reality-based approach to climate maters. We should consider all relevant, factual information in our decision making and resist being carried away by extraneous agenda mongering of any persuasion.
—James Norman, of Center Sandwich
Thank you for putting forth a common sense approach to this bill recognizing the crucial connection between energy and economy which protects all citizens who live, work and learn in NH.
Opposition
This bill is calling for policymakers locally and nationally to fully consider all relevant information and factors pertaining to climate change before pursuing courses of action that could adversely affect any economy or environment. The title makes it sound laudible. However, the bill itself is misleading and goes against clear, globally-recognized evidence of human-driven climate change.
—Margaret Fletcher, of Concord
This is a human-caused climate change deniers' bill . "It pretends climate change doesn’t exist because it’s too scary to face. But part of the title says that it would be a good idea to consider all the costs of pollution from fossil fuels in state energy decisions, and that is a great idea. The wording in this bill is extremist and alienating and anti-science.
While this bill may appear reasonable on the surface, its underlying tone and structure clearly promote inaction by casting doubt on scientific consensus, focusing on economic fears, and amplifying fringe perspectives. Seems to me its intention is to delay or dilute meaningful climate policy, rather than to advance informed, effective solutions.
—Melanie Nesheim, of Holderness
Wow. This resolution talks about "a wide spectrum of opinion regarding the true impact of human behavior on climate change" There is a wide spectrum of opinion on many subjects, this one included. Many of the fringe ones have been debunked. 95+% of climate scientists concur that climate change is real and caused primarily by human behavior.
Every single “whereas” assertion is wrong and blatantly irresponsible. THE FACTS are that climate change is real and it's human related. The OPINION of many behind this bill is they know better than the scientists and that we can continue to go on, business as usual and continue to let the coal, oil, and gas industry pollute our environment and not transition to the much cheaper and available sustainable alternative.
—Danielle Molleur, of Alton Bay
I oppose this bill as some of the language is misleading and incorrect. There is clear, documented evidence of human-caused climate change derived from fossil fuel pollution. To continue to ignore this reality is to accept huge losses in tourism as our winters become a thing of the past, and the quality of our lake water is compromised.
Firstly the statement that “climate change is occurring and has occurred throughout all time” suggests an oversimplification of complex climate dynamics. While it is true that earths climate has experienced fluctuations the current warming trend is unique in both its rapid pace and predominant correlation with human activities (industrial revolution) as confirmed by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
I adamantly oppose this bill. I consider my health, my family's health, and the health of all life on earthy my top priority. This bill fails to address the serious health consequences of burning fossil fuels. The pollution emitted when we burn oil and natural gas exacerbates asthma, increases our chances of developing respiratory diseases, and causes premature deaths.
—Sarah Weck, of West Chesterfield
The evidence is in: human-caused Climate Change IS occurring. Ask Los Angeles, Maui, or Portsmouth which is losing its shoreline. We don't need more study, we need ACTION to mitigate the effects of Climate Change which are already showing up in NH.
We need science-based policy, not ideology-driven irresponsibility. Text should include the high costs of climate pollution, damages to NH resources and property, adverse effects on health and nature. Talk to some of our local orchards. Two orchards in Concord lost their entire crop this year, and this is not the first time.
Hearing: Friday, Feb 07 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 206-208 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.