Committee Summary for House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs (01/31/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB264 00:02:48.720 - 8:01:24 AM	Public Hearing	relative to delegates to an Article V convention.	Ulery, Jordan(R)[A-]2024
HCR3 00:47:59.599 - 8:46:35 AM	Public Hearing	applying for a convention of the states under Article V of the Constitution of the United States.	Bernardy, JD(R)[A-]2024
HCR5 02:44:30.960 - 10:43:06 AM	Public Hearing	rescinding House Concurrent Resolution No. 40 passed by the 2012 New Hampshire General Court asking that Congress call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)
HJR1 04:08:18.239 - 12:06:54 PM	Public Hearing	affirming the natural right of persons and affirming that the state and federal government are established for the purpose of upholding, protecting, and securing these rights.	Belcher, Mike(R)[A]2024
Unclear 04:34:45.320 - 12:33:21 PM	General Working Session	Unclear
HB10 04:55:00.400 - 12:53:36 PM	Executive Session	establishing the parental bill of rights.	Packard, Sherman(R)[Spkr]2024
HB122 04:59:57.638 - 12:58:33 PM	Executive Session	relative to payment of claims arising out of actions or activities of the New Hampshire national guard.	Creighton, James(R)[B]2024
HCR8 05:03:11.200 - 1:01:47 PM	Executive Session	urging Congress to find that the Piscataqua River and Portsmouth Harbor lie within the state of New Hampshire.	Barton, Joseph(R)
HB64 05:08:42.558 - 1:07:18 PM	Executive Session	relative to extending hiring preferences for military members and their spouses to the state and private businesses, and establishing purchase preferences for disabled veterans and military spouses regarding state supply purchases.	Roy, Terry(R)[B]2024
HB55 0174h 05:16:48.280 - 1:15:24 PM	Executive Session	repealing the Selective Service Compliance Act.	Mannion, Tom(R)[A+]2024
HB256 05:28:09.280 - 1:26:45 PM	Executive Session	establishing a committee to study the federal government's response to the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)
HCR11 05:44:21.160 - 1:42:57 PM	Executive Session	declaring the directives of the judicial branch in the Claremont cases that the legislative and executive branches define an "adequate education," adopt "standards of accountability," and "guarantee adequate funding" of a public education are not binding on the legislative and executive branches.	Hill, Gregory(R)[A]2024
HB104 06:44:47.120 - 2:43:23 PM	Executive Session	relative to requiring an official declaration of war for the activation of the New Hampshire national guard in a foreign state.	Mannion, Tom(R)[A+]2024

HB264: Jordan Yuley, Hillsborough, New Hampshire Support00:02:48.720 - 8:01:24 AM; Jordan Yuley, representing Hillsborough, New Hampshire, and the sponsor of HB 264 FN, emphasizes the necessity of this bill due to the lack of responsiveness from the national government. He discusses the founding fathers' intent to balance power among the people, states, and the federal government, highlighting the constitutional provision for states to propose amendments through an Article 5 convention. Yuley argues that the bill is crucial to ensure that delegates to such conventions adhere to state legislative instructions and do not propose unauthorized amendments. He references historical examples and ongoing efforts to challenge federal overreach, including the need for states to maintain their constitutional rights. He also addresses potential concerns about faithless delegates, using the Supreme Court's ruling on faithless electors as a precedent. Yuley provides handouts, including a legislative progress report on Article 5 conventions, and addresses questions about the specifics of legislative instructions and penalties for violation, which would be a Class B felony.
HB264: Representative Beler Information Only00:17:56.559 - 8:16:32 AM; Representative Beler inquires about the specifics of what constitutes an unauthorized amendment and legislative instructions under the proposed bill. He seeks clarification on whether these instructions require a full vote of the house, a vote of those present, a committee decision, or a speaker's directive. Yuley responds by explaining that legislative instructions could include directives from the speaker, such as restrictions on accommodations, or from a joint resolution of the body, with the possibility of convening a special session to issue new instructions.
HB264: Representative Gagney Information Only00:20:17.240 - 8:18:53 AM; Representative Gagney asks about the penalty for violating the proposed bill, which would be a Class B felony, and confirms the potential for the bill to be reviewed by the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee (C&J) to assess the appropriateness of the penalty. Yuley acknowledges this and emphasizes the importance of a substantial penalty to ensure compliance, noting also that the bill includes a fiscal note, indicating potential review by the Finance Committee.
HB264: Representative Budak Information Only00:22:20.679 - 8:20:56 AM; Representative Budak questions the necessity of the bill, given that the Constitution already provides a method for amendments through Congress and state ratification. Yuley clarifies that the bill is about regulating delegates to a state-called Constitutional Convention, not Congressional amendments, and stresses the importance of state control over these delegates to ensure they adhere to the state's legislative instructions.
HB264: Representative Jones Information Only00:25:03.640 - 8:23:39 AM; Representative Jones seeks clarification on whether delegates must vote according to legislative instructions or if they have independent voting rights. Yuley explains that delegates could be instructed to vote a certain way or to abstain from voting, emphasizing the state legislature's authority over delegate behavior.
HB264: Samuel Feldman Support00:26:53.880 - 8:25:29 AM; Samuel Feldman testified in support of HB 264 FN, emphasizing his expertise in the Article 5 convention process. He highlighted the simplicity of this bill compared to previous ones that died in the Senate due to complexity. Feldman argued that the bill's penalty for delegates violating their oaths has been upheld by the Supreme Court, drawing a comparison to the Electoral College. He also mentioned the potential for an upcoming Article 5 convention due to existing calls and stressed the importance of regulations to ensure delegate compliance, regardless of one's stance on the convention itself.
HB264: Representative Lloyd Information Only00:31:15.440 - 8:29:51 AM; Representative Lloyd raised concerns about whether the bill would tie delegates to partisan politics rather than allowing them to act independently. He was interested in ensuring that a minority voice could be represented given the high penalties for delegates.
HB264: Samuel Feldman Information Only00:32:03.000 - 8:30:39 AM; In response to Representative Lloyd, Feldman explained that the Constitution guarantees delegates the right to deliberate, and states can only control the subject matter and procedures to a certain extent. He emphasized that a convention would involve all 50 states, and even states that did not call for the convention would need to ratify any proposed amendment, ensuring their voices are heard.
HB264: Bob Hansen from Salem Support00:33:36.399 - 8:32:12 AM; Bob Hansen supported HB 264 FN, stressing the need for regulations regardless of one's stance on the Article 5 convention. He noted that 19 states have already approved similar calls, and New Hampshire is likely to send delegates, making it essential to have rules in place to control them.
HB264: Eric Benavides from Guilford Support00:36:37.520 - 8:35:13 AM; Eric Benavides supported HB 264 FN, representing Wolfpack, an organization aiming to remove large money's corrupting influence from politics. He believed the bill provides necessary protections and confidence in the Article 5 process. He also noted that 25 states have already passed similar 'faithful delegate' bills.
HB264: Carol Pusit from Rochester Support00:42:33.160 - 8:41:09 AM; Carol Pusit supported the bill, emphasizing the need for delegate legislation due to the frequent turnover of New Hampshire's legislature. She suggested including provisions for interstate conventions and delegate selection protocols to further protect New Hampshire.
HB264: Joe Trelli from Hampton Support00:44:08.680 - 8:42:44 AM; Joe Trelli supported HB 264 FN, discussing the 'belt and suspenders' safety measures in the Constitution. He explained the historical context of Article 5 and how it ensures states have a say in proposing amendments. He highlighted the specific topics the convention would address and the one state, one vote rule.
HCR3: Representative JD Bernardi from Rockingham 36, Hampton Falls, Kingston, Southampton, Newton, and Plaistow Support00:47:59.599 - 8:46:35 AM; Representative JD Bernardi introduced HCR3, which applies for a Convention of States under Article 5 to address fiscal restraints, limit federal power, and impose term limits. He detailed the historical context of Article 5, its unanimous adoption, and its purpose to allow states to propose amendments. Bernardi argued that such conventions have been drivers of change, citing historical examples. He emphasized the need for action due to the federal government's overreach and the increasing national debt, urging New Hampshire to join the 19 states that have already supported similar measures.
HCR3: Representative Gagy Information Only01:04:12.520 - 9:02:48 AM; Representative Gagy sought clarification on the differences between HCR3 and HB 264 FN, to which Bernardi responded that both aim for the same outcome but noted the distinction between a House Bill and a House Concurrent Resolution.
HCR3: Representative F Information Only01:04:58.680 - 9:03:34 AM; Representative F asked for clarification on the voting mechanism in Bernardi's resolution, specifically if it mirrored the Electoral College's system. Bernardi confirmed that in a convention, each state gets one vote, unlike the Electoral College.
HCR3: mbom Information Only01:06:03.240 - 9:04:39 AM; mbom followed up on Representative F's question about the number of delegates states can send to a convention. They clarified that states can send as many delegates as they want, but they only have one vote. At least two delegates are required for a state to participate in voting, and if more delegates are present, a majority opinion represents the state's vote.
HCR3: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:06:58.880 - 9:05:34 AM; The speaker asked for clarification on whether amendments at a constitutional convention would be voted on as a package or individually. The response was that it would be an articles convention, not a constitutional convention, and each proposal would be a separate amendment, requiring ratification by three-fourths of the states.
HCR3: beler Information Only01:08:21.560 - 9:06:57 AM; beler expressed agnosticism about the concept but raised concerns about the effectiveness of amending the Constitution when the federal government already seems to disregard it. The response highlighted that the issue is with the fuzzy interpretations of the Constitution by Congress and the courts, suggesting an article 5 convention could clarify these principles.
HCR3: Jones Information Only01:11:27.840 - 9:10:03 AM; Jones asked about the inclusion of a balanced budget within the fiscal restraints proposed by HCR3. The response affirmed that a balanced budget, along with tax caps and controls on government spending, falls under the fiscal restraints mentioned in the resolution.
HCR3: buak Information Only01:12:09.560 - 9:10:45 AM; buak sought clarification on the concept of sunset agencies mentioned in the resolution. The response clarified that the resolution did not propose specific agencies for sunset but listed it as a potential mechanism to limit federal power, to be discussed at the convention.
HCR3: cyber Information Only01:13:43.520 - 9:12:19 AM; cyber raised concerns about protecting the convention process from outside influences, specifically corporate money. The response acknowledged the issue but noted that the resolution did not include proposals for federal election financing, though such topics could be brought up at the convention if supported by enough states.
HCR3: Foss Information Only01:17:37.360 - 9:16:13 AM; Foss asked about the implications of a convention's decision on Congress's authority, particularly regarding the Commerce Clause. The response clarified that such an amendment would not create a fourth branch of government but would return authority to the states, reinforcing federalism.
HCR3: gagy Support01:20:42.960 - 9:19:18 AM; gagy supported the idea of an article 5 convention, suggesting it would return the right of law-making to the people, countering government overreach. The response affirmed this view.
HCR3: Lloyd Information Only01:21:28.199 - 9:20:04 AM; Lloyd inquired about New Hampshire's process for delegate selection if the resolution passes. The response indicated that New Hampshire does not currently have a formalized process, and it would need to be established by the legislature.
HCR3: Chairman Information Only01:22:14.920 - 9:20:50 AM; The Chairman thanked the Prime Sponsor for a wonderful civics discussion and announced the presence of former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who would be speaking next.
HCR3: Senator Sorum Support01:23:25.560 - 9:22:01 AM; Senator Sorum expressed his support for HCR3, emphasizing the urgency of addressing the national debt crisis, which he stated has escalated significantly since his 2012 campaign in New Hampshire. He argued that a Convention of States is necessary to propose amendments to the Constitution to prevent a fiscal collapse, using the analogy of crossing a burning street to illustrate the necessity of action despite potential risks. He detailed his initial skepticism about Article 5 but changed his view after witnessing the growing national debt. Sorum suggested potential amendments like limiting the Supreme Court to nine members to prevent court packing, emphasizing the importance of state sovereignty and the historical context of the Constitution's amendments. He highlighted the difficulty of passing amendments as a safeguard against radical changes, and stressed the importance of state legislatures in checking federal power. He also addressed concerns about a 'runaway convention', assuring that the convention would be limited by the call and precedent, and encouraged New Hampshire to lead in this initiative.
HCR3: Representative Mle Bomb Information Only01:40:45.920 - 9:39:21 AM; Representative Mle Bomb asked Senator Sorum about potential legal challenges to amendments passed by a Convention of States. Sorum clarified that a convention proposes amendments, which then require ratification by the states. He explained that once an amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution, and its interpretation would be subject to the courts, though some amendments like limiting the Supreme Court to nine members would leave little room for interpretation.
HCR3: Representative Foss Information Only01:42:10.119 - 9:40:46 AM; Representative Foss welcomed Senator Sorum back to New Hampshire and inquired about the possibility of a convention expanding federal power, using the recent overturn of Chevron Defense as an example. Sorum responded that the language of the resolution would limit what could be proposed at the convention, and states coming together for such a convention would likely vote to limit federal power, not expand it. He noted that any attempt to propose non-germane amendments would be ruled out of order.
HCR3: Representative Cyber Information Only01:46:48.320 - 9:45:24 AM; Representative Cyber asked if under a specific topic like campaign finance, could a subtopic like campaign finance for pro-choice be introduced. Sorum stated he couldn't comment on specifics of other proposals but reiterated that the language of their resolution is clear in limiting the scope to reducing federal power, not expanding it.
HCR3: Representative Lloyd Information Only01:47:44.679 - 9:46:20 AM; Representative Lloyd expressed concerns about the delegate selection process and the potential for partisan influence. Sorum explained that about a dozen states have established delegate selection procedures, and it is typically the legislature that appoints delegates, usually their own members. He stressed that the process is controlled by the states, and the partisan composition would vary by state.
HCR3: Representative Jones Information Only01:49:49.800 - 9:48:25 AM; Representative Jones asked if larger states like California and New York would be content with the one state, one vote concept. Sorum cited historical examples like the Colorado River compact, where states accepted equal representation despite population differences. He assured that precedent supports one state, one vote, and larger states would be unlikely to change this, given the majority of states would oppose such a change.
HCR3: Representative Bennett Information Only01:51:24.480 - 9:50:00 AM; Representative Bennett inquired about the projected timeline for the Convention of States. Sorum admitted the unpredictability of state legislative actions but expressed hope that three or four more states might join this year, emphasizing that worsening conditions might accelerate the process. He estimated that it would not happen within the next few years but stressed the urgency of the situation.
HCR3: Senator Rick Santorum Support01:53:23.320 - 9:51:59 AM; Senator Santorum argued in favor of HCR3, emphasizing the importance of a fiscal crisis and the need for a balanced budget amendment. He highlighted the significance of using Article 5 of the Constitution as a means to address the issue, suggesting that even if amendments are not ratified, the process itself would serve as a message to Congress and the President about the states' willingness to exercise their constitutional powers. He also stressed the educational value of a national debate on federalism and the role of states in relation to the federal government.
HCR3: Representative Ulery Information Only01:58:52.360 - 9:57:28 AM; Representative Ulery provided clarification on HB 264, explaining that it regulates delegates to a convention for proposing amendments but does not establish the convention itself. He emphasized that delegate selection is determined by the state legislature and discussed the purpose of a Convention of States, likening it to a soccer game where only similar proposals (soccer balls) are relevant, not different ones (footballs).
HCR3: Representative Timothy Horan from Strafford County District 10 Oppose02:02:03.360 - 10:00:39 AM; Representative Horan expressed opposition to HCR3, arguing that an Article 5 constitutional convention is a bad idea due to its broad scope and potential to run away from its intended purpose. He also mentioned that the selection process of delegates could be influenced by Congress through an enabling act, potentially leading to a convention resembling a third chamber of Congress.
HCR3: Scott Wallace from Danville Support02:04:06.760 - 10:02:42 AM; Scott Wallace supported HCR3, advocating for an Article 5 convention as a means for the people to amend the U.S. Constitution when Congress fails to act. He pointed to historical precedents and recent elections as evidence of public demand to limit federal power. Wallace emphasized the need for states to take action against federal overreach and unfunded mandates, suggesting a Convention of States could restore power to the people.
HCR3: Jim Rubin, former State Senator from District 5 Support02:07:29.040 - 10:06:05 AM; Jim Rubin, representing the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, supported HCR3 and highlighted the organization's support for a fiscal responsibility amendment. He disagreed with Senator Santorum on two points: the potential inclusion of campaign finance limits in the convention and the likelihood of passing a fiscal responsibility amendment. Rubin believed that such an amendment would be popular across political spectrums due to widespread concern about fiscal issues.
HCR3: Sam Feldman, volunteer with Wolfpack Information Only02:09:48.000 - 10:08:24 AM; Sam Feldman testified neutrally on HCR3, offering his expertise on the Article 5 convention process. He emphasized that the decision to pass or reject the resolution should be based on policy rather than procedural concerns. Feldman also discussed protections within the process and referenced historical examples, such as the ratification convention for the 21st Amendment, to illustrate the feasibility and potential outcomes of such conventions.
HCR3: Joshua Skinner from Farmington Support02:13:26.400 - 10:12:02 AM; Joshua Skinner, a disabled Army Combat veteran, supported the Article 5 Convention of States, citing his oath to the Constitution and the need for government accountability. He emphasized the importance of adhering to the entire Constitution, including Article 5, and expressed concern about government corruption and overreach. Skinner believed that the convention would help restore power to the states and the people.
HCR3: Nathan Marston from Chester Support02:16:40.920 - 10:15:16 AM; Nathan Marston expressed deep concern about the nation's future and supported HCR3 as a means to address federal government overreach, debt, and the need for term limits. He criticized Congress for becoming a career rather than a public service and highlighted the growing national debt. Marston emphasized that the Constitution's Article 5 was designed to prevent government tyranny.
HCR3: Bob Hansen, Veterans Coalition Director for the Convention of States in New Hampshire Support02:18:13.200 - 10:16:49 AM; Bob Hansen supported HCR3 and emphasized the importance of the state legislature's role in the constitutional amendment process as outlined in Article 5. He shared his personal journey of becoming involved with the Convention of States movement after reflecting on his oath to the Constitution. Hansen urged legislators to fulfill their duty and pass the resolution, highlighting the support from veterans.
HCR3: Carol Petuswitz Support02:21:23.000 - 10:19:59 AM; Carol Petuswitz supported HCR3, focusing on the educational value of the process for civic engagement. She argued that passing the resolution would provide an opportunity for Americans to learn about their government's checks and balances. Petuswitz provided handouts to support her arguments and emphasized the importance of returning power to the states and defending constituents' rights.
HCR3: Margaret Tully from Manchester Support02:24:29.560 - 10:23:05 AM; Margaret Tully supported HCR3, discussing the character of contemporary people compared to historical figures like Abraham Lincoln and Susan B. Anthony. She highlighted the sacrifices of veterans and the potential for future greatness in individuals. Tully also shared a story about Archbishop Fulton Sheen to illustrate the unpredictability of who might change the world, advocating for the resolution's passage to honor those sacrifices and potential.
HCR3: Paul from Sandown Support02:27:20.319 - 10:25:56 AM; Paul from Sandown expressed support for HCR3, focusing on three key points related to the resolution: term limits for Congress and federal employees, addressing entrenchment in Washington D.C., and the necessity of an Article 5 Convention of States. He shared anecdotes about long-serving politicians and federal employees, emphasizing the need for change. He also mentioned his local efforts in Sandown to promote the convention, including a petition and an upcoming deliberative session. Additionally, he distributed pocket guides to Article 5 and highlighted New Hampshire's historical significance in the ratification of the US Constitution.
HCR3: Linda Kin from Londonderry Support02:30:54.120 - 10:29:30 AM; Linda Kin, the state grassroots coordinator for Convention of States from Londonderry, supported HCR3. She emphasized the duty of citizens to address federal government shortcomings and urged the committee to vote favorably on the resolution. She stressed the importance of allowing New Hampshire delegates to participate in a 50-state conversation to amend the Constitution and address federal overreach, financial restraint, and term limits.
HCR3: John Loose from Hancock Support02:31:43.319 - 10:30:19 AM; John Loose, the director of Convention of States Action in New Hampshire from Hancock, supported HCR3. He expressed passion for the topic and highlighted the importance of government functioning closest to the people. He cited a national poll showing broad support for a meeting of states to propose amendments on fiscal responsibility, limits on federal power, and term limits. He emphasized the need for a Convention of States to address issues like the imperial presidency and encouraged the committee to pass the resolution for a full vote in the house.
HCR3: Gus G. Stratton from Brookfield Support02:36:16.840 - 10:34:52 AM; Gus G. Stratton, a retired physician from Brookfield, supported HCR3. He likened Article 5 to a remedy for societal and economic ills, drawing parallels to the Hippocratic Oath's principle of 'do no harm'. He appealed to the committee's sense of ethics and their oath to the state and federal constitutions, urging them to consider Article 5 as a tool for addressing current issues.
HCR3: Joe Trelli from New Hampshire Support02:37:51.439 - 10:36:27 AM; Joe Trelli, an undeclared voter from New Hampshire, supported HCR3. He highlighted the nonpartisan nature of the effort and its potential to solve problems through compromise. He referenced historical figures and events related to the Article 5 process, emphasizing the importance of state legislatures in proposing amendments. He expressed hope that the committee would vote in favor of HCR3 to allow broader discussion in the legislature.
HCR5: Representative Sabrin D. Schaner from Rochester District 30 Information Only02:44:30.960 - 10:43:06 AM; Representative Sabrin D. Schaner from Rochester District 30 introduced HCR5, which aims to rescind House Concurrent Resolution 40 from 2012. He explained that this bill is a refile of last year's resolution and anticipates its passage in the House again. He mentioned that while he sees merit in the Article 5 convention process, he has reservations about the specific amendment proposed in the 2012 resolution, particularly regarding a balanced budget amendment potentially leading to higher taxes.
HCR5: Former Senator Jim Rubin from New Hampshire Oppose02:46:58.600 - 10:45:34 AM; Former Senator Jim Rubin, representing the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, opposed HCR5. He highlighted the urgency of addressing the national debt, citing the US debt-to-GDP ratio reaching 100%. He argued that Congress has failed to control its spending and that states should use their Article 5 powers to propose amendments. He emphasized that the Supreme Court has affirmed the legislature's control over delegates to an amending convention and urged the committee to vote down HCR5 to maintain the balance budget amendment application.
HCR5: Representative Timothy Horgan from Strafford County District 10, Durham Support02:56:58.920 - 10:55:34 AM; Representative Timothy Horgan from Strafford County District 10, Durham, supported HCR5. He commended Representative Sabrin D. Schaner for introducing the resolution and shared his experience with similar resolutions in the past. He expressed concerns about the potential for a 'runaway' Article 5 convention and argued that such a convention is unnecessary at this time. He also discussed the complexity of the national debt and the potential unintended consequences of a balanced budget amendment.
HCR5: Carol Pusawitz from New Hampshire Oppose03:00:53.920 - 10:59:29 AM; Carol Pusawitz opposed HCR5, arguing that New Hampshire should not rescind the 2012 balanced budget resolution. She emphasized the ongoing issue of congressional overspending and the necessity of maintaining the balanced budget amendment application. She argued that the resolution is specific to discussing a balanced budget and does not open the door to other topics. She suggested that if the sponsors believe the founders made a mistake with Article 5, they should propose a new resolution to remove it.
HCR5: Samuel Feldman from Wolfpac Oppose03:04:49.200 - 11:03:25 AM; Samuel Feldman from Wolfpac opposed parts of HCR5, specifically those that he considered factually inaccurate. He stated that Wolfpac has no objection to rescinding the call for a balanced budget amendment but disagreed with the resolution's conflation of a true Constitutional Convention with an Article 5 amending convention. He provided historical context and precedent for constitutional conventions, emphasizing the importance of understanding the process correctly.
HCR5: Eric Benus from Guilford Oppose03:08:42.359 - 11:07:18 AM; Eric Benus from Guilford opposed HCR5. He stated that everything necessary had already been said and reiterated his opposition to the resolution.
HCR5: Eric Benavides, Guilford, representing Wolfpack Information Only03:09:14.080 - 11:07:50 AM; Eric Benavides from Guilford, representing Wolfpack, spoke about their neutral stance on the balanced budget amendment. He emphasized their focus on campaign finance reform and expressed concern over the inflammatory language used in HCR5 regarding Article 5 of the Constitution. He argued that Article 5 is a safe method for amending the Constitution, supported by multiple peer-reviewed reports from reputable sources like Harvard Law Review and the American Bar Association. He corrected his earlier statement, clarifying that 25 states have introduced, but only seven have passed and implemented, faithful delegate laws. He stressed the importance of accurate information and opposed misinformation in official records.
HCR5: Joe Trelli Oppose03:12:14.840 - 11:10:50 AM; Joe Trelli spoke in opposition to HCR5. He corrected a previous statement regarding James Madison's age during the Declaration of Independence, noting Madison was 26 at the time, while Mason was much older. He likened the Declaration of Independence to a patent, arguing that HCR5 misinterprets the document's purpose. He believed the Articles of Confederation failed due to a lack of amendment capability, leading to the success of the subsequent Constitution. He criticized HCR5 as folly and urged for its rejection, emphasizing the need for an Article 5 convention but not a recision.
HJR1: Representative Belzer, Prime Sponsor Support04:08:18.239 - 12:06:54 PM; Representative Belzer introduced HJR1, emphasizing the resolution's purpose to identify and affirm the natural rights that people possess, which are not derived from the state but exist before and after it. He highlighted the resolution's focus on rights such as freedom from state-established religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He cited examples of recent transgressions against these rights, including censorship by proxy and the quartering of individuals in private homes without consent. He stressed the importance of recognizing rights as coming from a Transcendent Source to prevent the state from taking them away, and he addressed potential questions about the resolution's implications and philosophical basis.
HJR1: Representative Mandal Bomb Information Only04:22:05.479 - 12:20:41 PM; Representative Mandal Bomb questioned Representative Belzer about the leeway within the rights mentioned in HJR1, particularly regarding the right to bear arms and potential regulations like background checks. Representative Belzer responded by explaining the historical context of the Second Amendment and the difficulty in determining the resolution's stance on modern regulations. Representative Mandal Bomb also sought clarification on the differences between HJR, HCR, and HR resolutions, which Representative Belzer and the chairman explained, noting that HJR, if passed, would have the effect of law but not be a law itself. Additionally, Representative Mandal Bomb asked about the sources of the resolution's language, to which Representative Belzer replied that the language was drawn from founding documents, The Federalist Papers, and the principles behind the Constitution.
HJR1: Representative Information Only04:33:12.400 - 12:31:48 PM; The representative raised a question to Representative Mandal Bomb regarding the limits of free speech, specifically whether calling for violence should be allowed. Representative Mandal Bomb responded by clarifying that while free speech is a right, there are exceptions such as true threats, incitement to violence, and defamation of character, which are not protected under free speech as they constitute criminal or civil offenses.
Unclear: Alan Aldenberg, Easter Seals New Hampshire Information Only04:34:45.320 - 12:33:21 PM; Alan Aldenberg, Chief of Military and Veteran Services for Easter Seals New Hampshire, provided a detailed presentation on the new Veterans Campus in Franklin. He introduced Nick Grant, another team member, and highlighted the campus's mission to provide holistic support to veterans, service members, and their families. Alan discussed the progress of Phase 1, which includes 29 units of permanent affordable housing, and outlined plans for Phase 2, which will feature an indoor Aquatics and fitness center. He also shared statistics on veteran suicides and homelessness, emphasizing the urgency and importance of the project. Alan expressed gratitude for the support and funding and invited committee members to visit the campus.
Unclear: Nick Grant, Easter Seals New Hampshire Information Only04:36:17.799 - 12:34:53 PM; Nick Grant, a team member at Easter Seals, briefly introduced himself and shared his military background, including six years in the US Army with three tours. He expressed excitement about the Veterans Campus project and his role in it, emphasizing the challenges veterans face when transitioning back to civilian life.
Unclear: Representative Information Only04:47:16.958 - 12:45:52 PM; A representative asked Alan Aldenberg about lessons learned from site visits during the community engagement process for the Veterans Campus. Alan mentioned the importance of permanent housing and recreation, which influenced the project's emphasis on these areas. He also praised the city of Franklin's cooperation and highlighted the potential for the campus to revitalize the city.
Unclear: Representative Information Only04:49:36.200 - 12:48:12 PM; A representative inquired about the definition of 'affordable' housing in the Veterans Campus project, to which Alan Aldenberg responded that it is tied to the median income in Franklin. The representative also asked about the permanency of the housing and the application process, and Alan explained that applications are already being accepted, aiming to build a waitlist and possibly refer applicants to other organizations like Harbor Care if needed.
Unclear: Representative Information Only04:51:08.558 - 12:49:44 PM; A representative asked about potential event hosting at the Veterans Campus. Alan Aldenberg mentioned that Nick Grant, with his marketing experience, would be handling such plans. He highlighted the need for sustainable business models to support the campus's long-term viability, considering the possibility of future conflicts and the resulting needs of veterans and their families.
Unclear: Representative Information Only04:52:44.080 - 12:51:20 PM; A representative commented on the range of therapy options available at the Veterans Campus, appreciating the inclusion of yoga and other holistic approaches for veterans with PTSD. Alan Aldenberg mentioned plans for a military-themed playground and partnerships with organizations like the Elliott Perry Foundation, emphasizing the importance of community support and collaboration.
Unclear: Representative Information Only04:53:29.440 - 12:52:05 PM; A representative expressed appreciation for Alan Aldenberg and Nick Grant's service and the Veterans Campus project, indicating interest in visiting the site in the future.
HB10: Representative Cyber Support04:55:00.400 - 12:53:36 PM; Representative Cyber made a motion to pass HB10, describing it as a housekeeping measure requested to streamline operations for the Department of Military and Veteran Services. They expressed support for the bill.
HB10: Representative Jery Support04:55:45.600 - 12:54:21 PM; Representative Jery seconded the motion to pass HB10, agreeing with Representative Cyber's comments and expressing support for the project.
HB122: Representative Jones Support04:59:57.638 - 12:58:33 PM; Representative Jones made a motion to pass HB122, describing it as a simple bill that raises the limit for claims against the state arising from National Guard activities from $500 to $1,000. They noted the minimal fiscal impact and supported the bill.
HB122: Representative F Support05:00:16.160 - 12:58:52 PM; Representative F seconded the motion to pass HB122, agreeing with Representative Jones's explanation and supporting the bill.
HCR8: Representative Manion Support05:03:11.200 - 1:01:47 PM; Representative Manion made a motion to pass HCR8, urging Congress to review the state boundary in the Piscataqua River due to ongoing ambiguity affecting taxation and sovereignty. They highlighted personal experiences with cross-border taxation and supported the resolution.
HCR8: Representative Rollins Support05:03:58.200 - 1:02:34 PM; Representative Rollins seconded the motion to pass HCR8, agreeing with Representative Manion's concerns about taxation and sovereignty, and supported the resolution.
HCR8: Clerk Information Only05:05:32.240 - 1:04:08 PM; The clerk, from Portsmouth, mentioned that the city of Portsmouth is neutral on the resolution, Congressman Chris Pappas is also neutral, and the town of Newington supports it.
HCR8: Chairman Information Only05:05:44.320 - 1:04:20 PM; The Chairman referenced the state seal and flag, both of which feature the ship Raleigh, suggesting a historical connection to shipbuilding in Portsmouth. He emphasized the importance of returning shipbuilding to its rightful place in New Hampshire.
HCR8: Representative Lloyd Information Only05:06:33.878 - 1:05:09 PM; Representative Lloyd supported the resolution, believing it is the proper procedure to involve the federal delegation to push for a resolution on the state boundary issue. He highlighted the need for a fair treatment in defining the boundary.
HCR8: Representative Jones Oppose05:06:58.400 - 1:05:34 PM; Representative Jones expressed concerns about the timing of passing the resolution due to current political dynamics in Washington, D.C., suggesting that New Hampshire might be at a disadvantage. He advised against moving forward at this time.
HCR8: Clerk Information Only05:07:43.920 - 1:06:19 PM; The Clerk announced the voting results on HCR8, which passed with a recommendation of 'Ought to Pass' by a vote of 14 to 4. A majority and minority report were also mentioned.
HB64: Chairman Information Only05:08:42.558 - 1:07:18 PM; The Chairman discussed the bill regarding hiring preferences for military spouses, mentioning a potential amendment and the decision to postpone the vote for a week to allow for language tweaks.
HB64: Representative Cyber Information Only05:09:29.440 - 1:08:05 PM; Representative Cyber mentioned the possibility of an amendment and the need to clarify how to identify a military spouse for the Department of Labor's purposes. He supported sending the bill to the Senate.
HB64: Representative Support05:11:02.920 - 1:09:38 PM; A representative expressed support for the bill, emphasizing the compelling testimony and rationale for supporting military families, and the sacrifices they make. He suggested moving forward with the bill.
HB64: Representative Raymond Support05:12:42.680 - 1:11:18 PM; Representative Raymond shared experiences from a related bill in the child and family law committee, highlighting the employment challenges faced by military spouses. He supported HB64 for addressing these issues.
HB64: Representative Lloyd Support05:13:39.480 - 1:12:15 PM; Representative Lloyd supported the bill but mentioned the Department of Labor's suggestion for an amendment to clarify how to recognize a military spouse. He suggested a floor amendment as an option.
HB64: Representative Manion Support05:14:25.280 - 1:13:01 PM; Representative Manion shared personal experiences from Camp Lejeune, underscoring the challenges military spouses face and supported the bill for its potential to help them.
HB64: Clerk Information Only05:15:59.280 - 1:14:35 PM; The Clerk announced the unanimous vote of 18-0 in favor of HB64, but noted it would not be placed on the consent agenda due to the possibility of a floor amendment.
HB55 0174h: Chairman Information Only05:16:48.280 - 1:15:24 PM; The Chairman introduced Amendment 0174h to HB55, which sought to remove certain sections from RSA 187-A:39, addressing concerns raised by the veteran community and postsecondary education.
HB55 0174h: Representative Rollins Support05:17:36.878 - 1:16:12 PM; Representative Rollins seconded the amendment motion but did not add further comments.
HB55 0174h: Representative Support05:18:25.840 - 1:17:01 PM; The representative explained that the amendment was a compromise to satisfy both the veteran community and postsecondary institutions by removing certain sections while keeping others.
HB55 0174h: Representative Manion Support05:19:56.558 - 1:18:32 PM; Representative Manion supported the amendment, noting that the federal government no longer requires compliance with Selective Service registration, aligning the state's actions with federal policy.
HB55 0174h: Representative F Support05:20:44.200 - 1:19:20 PM; Representative F further elaborated on the amendment's impact on the University System of New Hampshire, noting the reduction in administrative burden and costs.
HB55 0174h: Representative Hemingway Support05:21:30.440 - 1:20:06 PM; Representative Hemingway appreciated the amendment for keeping the Selective Service registration requirement while removing the funding aspect for colleges, aligning with his views on maintaining a ready force.
HB55 0174h: Unnamed Speaker Support05:22:19.120 - 1:20:55 PM; The speaker expressed appreciation for the amendment to HB55, stating it improved upon an earlier version which they felt regressed the bill. They supported the amendment that was passed by a hand vote with a unanimous 18-0 vote.
HB55 0174h: Representative Manion Support05:23:27.480 - 1:22:03 PM; Representative Manion moved for an OTPA (Ought to Pass as Amended) on HB55, indicating satisfaction with the amendment as it addressed the issues raised about the original bill. They felt the amendment was a comprehensive solution that satisfied both the postsecondary institutions and the Attorney General.
HB55 0174h: Representative JY Support05:24:12.798 - 1:22:48 PM; Representative JY seconded the OTPA motion on HB55 and conducted research on Selective Service compliance rates across states. They found no strong correlation between state-level laws and compliance rates, noting New Hampshire's 75.1% rate compared to Connecticut's 100% without such laws. They suggested that automatic registration or opt-out systems might be more effective than New Hampshire's opt-in system.
HB55 0174h: Representative Jones Information Only05:26:33.240 - 1:25:09 PM; Representative Jones raised a concern about the amendment to HB55 being placed on the consent agenda, citing transparency issues due to the amendment occurring after the public hearing. The committee decided not to put it on the consent agenda for transparency.
HB256: Representative Manion Support05:28:09.280 - 1:26:45 PM; Representative Manion moved to retain HB256, which proposed a study committee on the USS Liberty incident. They supported the idea of a committee but felt more time was needed to find the best solution. They suggested that retaining the bill over the summer would allow for a fall meeting to address the issue.
HB256: Representative Rollins Support05:28:50.638 - 1:27:26 PM; Representative Rollins expressed strong support for HB256, emphasizing the need for closure for the survivors of the USS Liberty. They were passionate about the issue, prioritizing the service members' needs and suggested that a quicker solution might be more effective than a study committee. They supported the idea of a fall meeting to address the issue.
HB256: Chairman Information Only05:30:23.040 - 1:28:59 PM; The chairman discussed the emotional testimony received regarding the USS Liberty and highlighted the New Hampshire connection to the incident. They suggested that retaining the bill would allow for a possible House Joint Resolution (HJR) in September, which could lead to quicker action than a study committee. They emphasized the need for transparency and action to provide closure for the survivors.
HB256: Representative Lloyd Information Only05:33:34.878 - 1:32:10 PM; Representative Lloyd expressed concern about the timeline if HB256 were retained, suggesting that an HJR might be a quicker solution. They questioned whether retaining the bill would prolong the wait for action and suggested that an ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) followed by an HJR might be more efficient.
HB256: Representative Gagy Support05:35:17.680 - 1:33:53 PM; Representative Gagy, a naval veteran, emotionally supported the survivors of the USS Liberty, assuring them they were not abandoned. They emphasized the need for more clout to ensure the survivors' stories were heard and suggested that the public should contact their elected officials to push for action. They questioned the circumstances of the ship's movement and the subsequent cover-up.
HB256: Representative Rollins Support05:37:23.840 - 1:35:59 PM; Representative Rollins conducted an unofficial straw poll to show support for the USS Liberty survivors among the committee members, aiming to provide them with closure.
HB256: Representative Information Only05:37:55.520 - 1:36:31 PM; The representative expressed solidarity and ongoing commitment to the cause of the USS Liberty survivors. They emphasized that the issue has not been forgotten and they are working towards providing closure to the survivors. The representative mentioned plans to come back next year with stronger efforts and to answer the survivors' questions.
HB256: Representative Information Only05:38:32.480 - 1:37:08 PM; The representative posed a rules question, inquiring about potential workarounds that the committee could explore to help the USS Liberty veterans while awaiting a resolution. The response was positive, suggesting that the committee could draft a new joint resolution (NJR) before the September deadline, which could include new information to strengthen the resolution.
HB256: Representative Information Only05:39:38.478 - 1:38:14 PM; The representative suggested exploring non-legislative avenues, such as working with veteran services, to provide relief to USS Liberty veterans in the interim. The response was supportive, with an agreement to discuss these possibilities further outside of formal meetings.
HB256: Representative Jones Information Only05:40:25.760 - 1:39:01 PM; Representative Jones sought clarification on the benefits of retaining HB256. The response outlined the concerns with forming a committee, including personnel and time demands, and suggested that direct actions, such as a resolution, could be more efficient and effective.
HCR11: Representative Manion Support05:44:21.160 - 1:42:57 PM; Representative Manion moved for OTP (Ought to Pass) on HCR11, citing the extensive testimony heard during the hearings about the situation in Bangladesh. They expressed interest in US foreign policy and suggested that the situation might involve external forces possibly linked to adversaries of the US, urging Congress to investigate.
HCR11: Representative Gagney Support05:45:06.520 - 1:43:42 PM; Representative Gagney supported the motion, summarizing the resolution's purpose succinctly as 'save Bangladesh and its people from injustice.'
HCR11: Representative Support05:45:53.280 - 1:44:29 PM; The representative expressed surprise and concern upon learning about the situation in Bangladesh through the resolution and thanked the prime sponsor for raising awareness. They believed the resolution could help educate others on the matter.
HCR11: Representative Cyber Support05:46:41.400 - 1:45:17 PM; Representative Cyber supported the measure and condemned religious persecution globally, emphasizing the importance of separation of church and state in relation to the broader issues in Bangladesh.
HCR11: Representative Jones Support05:46:59.040 - 1:45:35 PM; Representative Jones mentioned a previous suggestion to change 'allegations' to 'incidents' in the resolution but decided to stick with the original wording.
HCR11: Representative Belzer Support05:49:47.360 - 1:48:23 PM; Representative Belzer moved to pass HCR11 and supported the OTP motion. They argued that the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is an attempt to impose harmful measures on the United States that were rejected by American voters. They claimed these measures promote degrowth and ideological nepotism, comparing them to cartel activity and fascism. They referenced historical quotes to support their argument that the EU's policies could lead to a merger of state and corporate power, resulting in civilizational suicide and a hostile act against the U.S.
HCR11: Representative Manion Support05:54:22.718 - 1:52:58 PM; Representative Manion seconded the motion and supported Representative Belzer's arguments. They highlighted the potential impact on downstream corporations, particularly in the automotive industry, which would face increased costs due to compliance with EU regulations. They expressed strong opposition to these regulations.
HCR11: Representative Foss Oppose05:55:09.520 - 1:53:45 PM; Representative Foss opposed the OTP motion, arguing that the characterization of the CSDDD was misleading if one hadn't read the regulation. They explained that the due diligence requirement is for corporations doing business in Europe to assess risks of human rights abuses and negative climate impacts, not a mandate to shut down operations. They emphasized that the regulation allows corporations to make executive decisions based on financial feasibility and that larger companies are not held responsible for their suppliers' violations. They also argued against government interference in private business dealings and warned of potential trade wars and price increases due to tariffs. They highlighted the hypocrisy of rejecting EU regulations while the U.S. had passed similar laws regarding TikTok.
HCR11: Representative Hemingway Support06:02:17.000 - 2:00:53 PM; Representative Hemingway supported the OTP motion, stating that the CSDDD is essentially an ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standard that affects businesses in the U.S. They argued that small organizations with cash flow issues would not be able to comply with these standards, impacting their ability to trade with the EU. They emphasized that these standards extend beyond companies to households in Asia and urged a stand against these policies, citing the rejection of similar policies like the Green New Deal in the U.S.
HCR11: Representative Belzer Support06:05:55.638 - 2:04:31 PM; In response to a question from Representative Mandelbaum, Representative Belzer clarified that the New Hampshire Constitution's Article 83 prohibits anti-competitive behavior and monopolies. They argued that when companies manipulate the market or agree to social activist conditions, it violates the Constitution and federal law. They further stated that EU laws forcing companies to implement these procedures globally are even worse than if companies did it on their own.
HCR11: Representative Cyber Oppose06:08:15.840 - 2:06:51 PM; Representative Cyber opposed the OTP motion, stating that the EU's actions are not the U.S.'s concern and American companies can opt out of doing business in Europe. They argued that the EU's policies are a way for them to keep themselves in check and suggested that cleaner air could benefit New Hampshire, a major tourist state.
HCR11: Representative Foss Oppose06:09:50.120 - 2:08:26 PM; Representative Foss reiterated their opposition to the OTP motion, emphasizing that companies can choose not to do business in the EU and that the regulation requires due diligence to prevent human rights abuses. They argued that inserting government into these business decisions is a form of government overreach and highlighted the ideological nature of the debate. They compared the U.S.'s actions regarding TikTok to the EU's regulations, suggesting a similar imposition of ideology.
HCR11: Representative Manion Support06:12:12.760 - 2:10:48 PM; Representative Manion clarified their view that the U.S. is trying to influence commerce, not impose ideology, though they acknowledged the ideological lens of the debate. They argued that the discussion seemed to be about rejecting the EU's policies on ideological grounds.
HCR11: Representative Mandelbaum Information Only06:16:11.120 - 2:14:47 PM; Representative Mandelbaum asked for clarification on the term 'due diligence' in the CSDDD. Representative Foss explained that it is a broad term requiring large corporations to investigate their supply chains and business practices to ensure they are not involved in human rights abuses or violations of labor protections.
HCR11: Representative Manion Support06:21:15.558 - 2:19:51 PM; Representative Manion moved to retain HB 104, the Defend the Guard measure, and spoke about the funding concerns raised by generals opposing the bill. They questioned the mission of the National Guard and referenced historical quotes and recent events, including the attack on Tower 22 in Jordan, to support their argument. They highlighted the progress of similar bills in other states and urged caution regarding the potential consequences of deploying National Guard members.
HCR11: Representative Cyber Oppose06:29:46.638 - 2:28:22 PM; Representative Cyber supported retaining HB 104 but wanted to further examine its potential costs to the state. They shared the perspective of a new representative, Patrick Long, who benefited from his National Guard service and questioned the impact of the bill on those who wish to serve for a limited time.
HCR11: Representative Jones Information Only06:31:20.478 - 2:29:56 PM; Representative Jones thanked Representative Manion for reminding them of a question they had asked about the difference between recruiting for the National Guard and the military, emphasizing the importance of the question.
HCR11: Representative Bennett Support06:32:07.600 - 2:30:43 PM; Representative Bennett expressed support for HB 104, citing concerns about funding from someone in the National Guard. They emphasized the importance of protecting the lives of those who might not return from deployment and supported the retain motion to allow further consideration.
HCR11: Representative Manion Support06:35:11.920 - 2:33:47 PM; Representative Manion clarified that retaining the bill allows more time for consideration and shared that the current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegeth, supports the bill. They discussed the issue of 'ribbon chasing' and the need for legislative oversight to protect citizens from executive overreach.
HCR11: Representative Foss Information Only06:37:30.878 - 2:36:06 PM; Representative Foss appreciated the opportunity to retain HB 104, expressing their conflict over the potential fiscal impact and the livelihoods at stake. They shared personal experiences and the importance of further study before making a decision.
HCR11: Representative Cyber Information Only06:42:10.920 - 2:40:46 PM; Representative Cyber mentioned a recent training exercise crash and the death of a high school alumnus, Ryan O'Hara, to highlight that military deaths also occur during training exercises, not just in combat zones.
HCR11: Representative Mandelbaum Information Only06:42:57.320 - 2:41:33 PM; Representative Mandelbaum appreciated the retain motion for HB 104, agreeing with the bill's spirit but expressing concerns about its impact on Pease International Guard in their district. They supported further consideration and mentioned a potential amendment idea involving a trigger clause based on other states passing similar bills.
HB104: Unnamed Speaker Information Only06:44:47.120 - 2:43:23 PM; The speaker expressed concerns about the potential repercussions of the bill, focusing on the impact on military personnel's safety and the economic implications for New Hampshire, particularly referencing the Pease Air Force Base. They mentioned the importance of retaining the bill until more states pass similar legislation and there are no negative repercussions at the national level, indicating a cautious approach to the bill's potential effects on military funding and equipment.
HB104: Representative Hemingway Oppose06:47:05.760 - 2:45:41 PM; Representative Hemingway, a retired Guardsman, argued against the bill even if more states were to adopt similar legislation within the year. He highlighted concerns over the uncertainty of funding and the implications of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, noting that Pease Air Force Base was converted to a National Guard unit and is no longer under Air Force control. He emphasized the complexities of military funding distribution and the potential for unintended consequences.
HB104: Prime Sponsor Information Only06:48:41.920 - 2:47:17 PM; The Prime Sponsor concluded the discussion by noting that the entire debate would be irrelevant if Congress were to declare war, suggesting that the bill's passage hinges on Congressional action. This statement implies a conditional support for the bill based on larger political actions.
HB104: Clerk Information Only06:49:28.840 - 2:48:04 PM; The Clerk conducted a roll call vote on the motion to retain HB104. The vote resulted in a 17 to 1 decision to retain the bill, with some members expressing reluctance.
HB104: Chairman Moffett Information Only06:50:15.958 - 2:48:51 PM; Chairman Moffett announced the results of the vote and outlined the schedule for upcoming sessions, indicating that the committee would reconvene the following week to hear the last three hearings and potentially have an executive session. He also requested committee reports by Sunday night to facilitate timely processing.

Moffett, Michael(Chairman)(R)[A-]2024	Mandelbaum, Jennifer(Clerk)(D)[F]2024	Rollins, Skip(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2024
Jeudy, Jean(D)[F]2024	Budathoki, Suraj(D)	Foss, Lily(D)
Gagne, Larry(R)[A-]2024	Lundgren, David(R)[B]2024	Leavitt, John(R)[A-]2024
Belcher, Mike(R)[A]2024	Plante, Raymond(R)	Hemingway, Wayne(R)
Mannion, Tom(R)[A+]2024	Lloyd, Christal(D)[CT]2024	Seibert, Christine(D)[F]2024
Jones, Philip(D)[CT]2024	Manohar, Sanjeev(D)	Bennett, Cindy(R)