Committee Summary for House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs (02/07/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HCR1 00:31:11.519 - 9:00:07 AM	Public Hearing	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.	Moffett, Michael(R)[A-]2024
HR12 01:52:58.199 - 10:21:54 AM	Public Hearing	urging Congress to amend the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013.	Belcher, Mike(R)[A]2024
HCR1 03:35:33.520 - 12:04:29 PM	Public Hearing	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.	Moffett, Michael(R)[A-]2024
HCR1 05:37:39.958 - 2:06:35 PM	Executive Session	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.	Moffett, Michael(R)[A-]2024

HCR1: Representative MAF Support00:31:11.519 - 9:00:07 AM; Representative MAF, the prime sponsor of HCR1, presented arguments for repealing the Jones Act, focusing on its economic and security implications. They argued that the Jones Act, established in 1920, has backfired by imposing unnecessary and counterproductive restrictions on domestic waterborne shipping. MAF highlighted that the Act's requirements for ships to be U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-crewed inflate costs and reduce competition, leading to a decline in the U.S. shipbuilding industry. They referenced a study by the KO Institute and cited examples such as inflated prices for U.S.-built ships and the case of Fisher's Finest, a Washington State fishing company affected by the Act's foreign steel restrictions. MAF also addressed the potential impact on jobs, suggesting that repealing the Act could stimulate shipbuilding and job creation in the industry. They emphasized the need for cleaner energy alternatives, particularly natural gas, and responded to concerns about national security by suggesting that reform might be an option if full repeal is not feasible.
HCR1: Representative Bennett Information Only00:41:21.200 - 9:10:17 AM; Representative Bennett asked why the Jones Act had not been addressed before. Representative MAF responded that it had been addressed in the previous term by this committee and tabled on the floor, emphasizing the importance of the discussion, especially in winter due to New Hampshire's dependence on shipping for fuel.
HCR1: Representative Cy Information Only00:42:57.720 - 9:11:53 AM; Representative Cy raised concerns about potential job losses at the Port if the Jones Act were repealed. Representative MAF acknowledged the concern but stated that supporters of the bill believe any job losses would not be significant.
HCR1: Representative Plant Information Only00:43:43.079 - 9:12:39 AM; Representative Plant expressed concerns about foreign ships operating in U.S. waters if the Jones Act were fully repealed, given global turmoil. Representative MAF responded by suggesting that Congress could either repeal or reform the Act to address security concerns.
HCR1: Representative Ly Information Only00:44:29.599 - 9:13:25 AM; Representative Ly asked if Representative MAF would consider amending the language of the bill from 'repeal' to 'reform'. Representative MAF was open to discussing this change.
HCR1: Representative Bela Information Only00:45:23.480 - 9:14:19 AM; Representative Bela asked if repealing the Jones Act would increase the availability of clean energy in New Hampshire, following a recent House vote on clean energy definitions. Representative MAF agreed that it could contribute to cleaner energy, particularly through increased access to natural gas.
HCR1: Representative Buddha Information Only00:47:43.599 - 9:16:39 AM; Representative Buddha inquired about the reasons opponents gave against the bill in the previous term. Representative MAF mentioned concerns about job losses and suggested that others could better articulate the opposition's arguments.
HCR1: Representative Lloy Information Only00:49:17.799 - 9:18:13 AM; Representative Lloy asked about the impact on the U.S. steel industry if the Jones Act were repealed. Representative MAF recalled testimony from a representative from Gilmanton about the potential impact on labor if foreign steel were used in shipbuilding, but felt it was not a significant concern.
HCR1: Representative Jones Information Only00:51:20.799 - 9:20:16 AM; Representative Jones questioned if repealing the Jones Act would be coercive, to which Representative MAF responded by acknowledging that tariffs can be coercive but preferred to term it as 'gentle prodding'.
HCR1: Representative (unspecified) Information Only00:52:53.280 - 9:21:49 AM; An unspecified representative asked if repealing the Jones Act would decimate the U.S. shipbuilding industry and increase reliance on foreign countries. Representative MAF argued that repealing the Act would actually benefit shipbuilding and American commerce by citing thriving industries like planes and automobiles.
HCR1: Dan McGuire, Town of Epsom Support00:54:26.480 - 9:23:22 AM; Dan Maguire, co-sponsor of the bill, spoke in support of repealing the Jones Act, arguing that it exemplifies protectionism's failure. He explained that the Act, established 105 years ago, has led to a lack of competition in the US shipbuilding industry, resulting in fewer large commercial ships being built domestically. He highlighted the political reasons for its persistence, citing concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Maguire provided examples such as the expensive energy situation in Puerto Rico due to the Jones Act, the letter from New England Governors to suspend the Act during a high natural gas price period, and the impact on cruise itineraries. He concluded that the Jones Act harms rather than helps US military capabilities and economic interests, advocating for free market solutions.
HCR1: Brian Vahy, Vice President of the Atlantic Region for the American Waterways Operators Oppose01:11:44.679 - 9:40:40 AM; Brian Vahy testified in opposition to HCR1, arguing that repealing the Jones Act would harm New Hampshire jobs, national security, and the economy. He emphasized the Jones Act's role in supporting over 650,000 jobs and contributing $150 billion to the US economy, with specific contributions to New Hampshire. Vahy argued that the Act is vital for national security, ensuring American control over domestic supply chains, and preventing foreign influence, particularly from China. He refuted claims that the Act prevents innovation, citing examples of modern US-flagged vessels and investments in wind development, and stressed the minor impact of the Act on fuel prices compared to global market factors.
HCR1: Andrew Schel, Dover, New Hampshire Oppose01:24:25.920 - 9:53:21 AM; Andrew Schel, an attorney and former Jones Act Mariner from Dover, New Hampshire, spoke against HCR1. He emphasized the Jones Act's minimal impact on gasoline prices and its environmental benefits compared to other transportation methods. Schel detailed the economic contributions of the domestic Maritime industry to New Hampshire, including job creation and economic output. He highlighted the role of Jones Act Mariners in ensuring security and safety in the transport of dangerous cargos. Schel also addressed the misconception about shipbuilding in New England, clarifying the specialized nature of certain shipyards and the domestic jobs they support. He concluded by reinforcing the bipartisan support for the Jones Act and its importance to national security and economic stability.
HCR1: Jones Information Only01:34:28.639 - 10:03:24 AM; Jones discussed the potential impact of repealing the Jones Act, expressing concerns about the timing given the current international trade situation and the dependency on foreign oil. He highlighted the potential disruption in the water transportation industry if the act were to be repealed.
HCR1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:35:17.400 - 10:04:13 AM; The speaker elaborated on the stability the Jones Act provides, particularly for states and protectorates like Hawaii that rely on U.S. flag vessels for essential supplies such as food and fuel. They expressed that repealing the Jones Act could lead to reliance on foreign vessels, potentially at higher costs, and emphasized the importance of reliable delivery systems.
HCR1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:37:33.040 - 10:06:29 AM; The speaker responded to a question about amending the Jones Act instead of repealing it. They stated that while the act has stood for over a century, it is open to amendment if changes could benefit the U.S. Merchant Marine and ensure stability, security, and economic benefits.
HCR1: Representative Minion Information Only01:38:08.040 - 10:07:04 AM; Representative Minion asked about the cost of LNG, to which the speaker responded that they did not have that information available but had provided other data related to gasoline costs with their testimony.
HCR1: Richard Bano Oppose01:38:55.480 - 10:07:51 AM; Richard Bano spoke in opposition to HCR1, which calls for the repeal of the Jones Act. As a former New Hampshire resident, dual licensed mariner, and retired U.S. Navy Captain, he argued that the Jones Act is critical for national security and the domestic maritime industry. He highlighted the economic impact on New Hampshire, the potential reliance on foreign shipping, and the importance of maintaining a reserve of U.S. mariners. Bano also mentioned bipartisan support for the Jones Act and the need to strengthen the U.S. maritime sector to counter global maritime ambitions, particularly those of China.
HCR1: Representative Gagy Information Only01:42:53.840 - 10:11:49 AM; Representative Gagy asked about the lack of shipbuilding in the U.S. despite the importance of the Jones Act for security. Bano responded by mentioning the Ships for America Act, which aims to increase U.S. shipbuilding and counter the Chinese threat in the industry. He provided an example of how subsidized Chinese shipyards undercut U.S. repair costs, illustrating the competitive challenges faced by the U.S. maritime sector.
HCR1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:46:42.000 - 10:15:38 AM; The speaker discussed the potential of amending the Jones Act instead of repealing it, noting that there are already waivers in place for specific scenarios. They provided examples of waivers for heavy lift operations and LNG transport, explaining the challenges due to short-term contracts in New England. They also mentioned the progress with Crowley Maritime purchasing a reflagged LNG carrier for service in Puerto Rico and potentially New England.
HR12: Representative Belshire Support01:52:58.199 - 10:21:54 AM; Representative Belshire introduced HR12, a resolution urging Congress to amend the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013 to reinstate the prohibition on the U.S. government using taxpayer funds to propagandize American citizens. They explained the historical context of the original Smith-Mundt Act and the consequences of its amendment in 2013, which allowed for domestic propaganda. Belshire cited examples of information warfare and propaganda campaigns conducted with American funds against American citizens, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. They emphasized the bipartisan nature of the issue and its importance to national security.
HR12: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:57:39.960 - 10:26:35 AM; The speaker asked about the timing of the submission of HR12, to which Belshire responded that it was a recommendation from a bipartisan committee investigating the state's response to COVID-19. They highlighted the committee's findings on information warfare campaigns and the need to address this issue through legislative action.
HR12: Representative Manion Information Only02:01:14.960 - 10:30:10 AM; Representative Manion inquired about the potential use of propaganda in scenarios involving national security risks, to which Belshire responded by emphasizing the dangers of government involvement in propaganda. They argued that an open marketplace of ideas is the best way to combat false speech and that government should not be involved in deciding what is true or false due to its coercive power.
HR12: Representative Gagy Information Only02:02:03.599 - 10:30:59 AM; Representative Gagy asked for clarification on 'nudge theory' mentioned in the resolution. Belshire explained that nudge theory involves subtle changes in information to manipulate beliefs and is part of psychological warfare tactics used in propaganda campaigns.
HR12: Representative Cyber Information Only02:02:50.000 - 10:31:46 AM; Representative Cyber raised concerns about corporate media engaging in propaganda and questioned whether further action should be taken to stop this. Belshire distinguished between government and private propaganda, arguing that government should not use taxpayer funds for such purposes due to its coercive power.
HR12: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:09:09.920 - 10:38:05 AM; The speaker referenced the historical use of government-funded propaganda during World War II, such as the 'Why We Fight' series, and asked if such actions would be precluded by the proposed amendment. Belshire clarified that the original Smith-Mundt Act did not prohibit such activities and that the amendment would focus on preventing the use of psychological warfare assets against American citizens.
HR12: Representative Lane Information Only02:11:30.079 - 10:40:26 AM; Representative Lane asked for examples of information warfare during the COVID-19 situation. Belshire provided an example of efforts to downplay the lab leak theory of the virus's origin, citing emails and immediate actions to promote a narrative of a wet market origin to deflect from possible U.S. involvement in funding related research.
HCR1: Representative Moffett Support03:35:33.520 - 12:04:29 PM; Representative Moffett presented HCR1, emphasizing the need for a fair climate debate and the inclusion of all voices. They criticized climate alarmism and the bullying of those skeptical of climate change claims. Moffett highlighted the economic and practical impacts of climate policies on New Hampshire, such as higher electric rates, potential bans on wood stoves, and the purchase of forest land for carbon credits. They argued against adopting policies that could harm Granite Staters without significant climate benefits and shared 14 points challenging various climate claims and policies. Moffett advocated for a measured transition away from fossil fuels and called for decisions based on reason and mutual respect.
HCR1: Representative Cyber Information Only03:55:51.760 - 12:24:47 PM; Representative Cyber questioned the fairness of accusing one side of bullying, pointing out that meteorologists, who are on the front line of climate reporting, also face bullying. They referenced a case where a meteorologist was pressured not to use the term 'climate change' on a news network. Moffett acknowledged the issue of bullying on both sides and stressed the importance of allowing all experts to express their views, while noting the spectrum of opinion among meteorologists and climatologists.
HCR1: Jones Information Only03:58:07.920 - 12:27:03 PM; Jones asked a procedural question about the resolution's destination. He noted that most resolutions specify a recipient, but HCR1 does not. The response indicated that as a concurrent resolution, it would go to the Senate, and if passed by both bodies, the sponsors would ensure it is shared with the federal delegation.
HCR1: Manion Information Only03:59:22.000 - 12:28:18 PM; Manion raised concerns about climate anxiety among the youth, questioning whether legislation should instill fear in children. He highlighted anecdotal and statistical evidence showing that young people are worried about a climate crisis and suggested that this fear is detrimental to their mental health.
HCR1: Lane Information Only04:00:09.159 - 12:29:05 PM; Lane reminded the committee of a recent discussion about the definition of clean energy. She referenced Representative McGee's stance on nuclear energy, who clarified that she was not opposed to nuclear power but wanted a better definition and consensus on what constitutes clean energy.
HCR1: Duan Information Only04:03:15.159 - 12:32:11 PM; Duan questioned whether scientists are influenced by their funding sources. The response acknowledged the influence of money on debates, suggesting that it impacts positions taken but is difficult to quantify.
HCR1: Timothy Horgan, Strafford County District 10 Oppose04:04:00.680 - 12:32:56 PM; Horgan spoke against the bill, criticizing the notion of nuclear power as clean energy due to its waste and non-renewable nature. He also discussed climate change, emphasizing the lack of a 'Planet B' and criticized the resolution for not specifying a recipient, questioning its effectiveness and drafting.
HCR1: Matthew Kain Support04:10:04.199 - 12:39:00 PM; Kain supported the proposal with suggestions for improvement. He discussed his background in public health and climate research, highlighting the impacts of climate change on public health, such as vector-borne diseases and mental health. He suggested revising the resolution to use more neutral language and encouraged bipartisan dialogue on the issue.
HCR1: John Gage Oppose04:16:14.840 - 12:45:10 PM; Gage opposed the bill, focusing on the influence of out-of-state polluters and the Koch Network's role in shaping policy. He criticized the bill's whereas clauses as denying human-caused climate change and suggested amendments to align with scientific consensus. He discussed his personal actions to reduce his carbon footprint and advocated for a carbon fee and dividend system.
HCR1: Julius Sodi Information Only04:40:36.520 - 1:09:32 PM; Sodi was about to begin his testimony but the transcript cut off before he could speak.
HCR1: Julius Sodi, representing Wilton and Londonderry Support04:40:47.240 - 1:09:43 PM; Julius Sodi supports HCR1, arguing that the scientific process is in crisis due to funding-motivated sloppy science, particularly in the field of climate change. He critiques the consensus-based approach to science, using Einstein as an example of how consensus can be wrong. Sodi challenges the theory of anthropogenic global warming, stating it fails the philosophy of science test due to a lack of coherent theory, reproducible predictions, and definitive mathematical calculations. He proposes the ideal gas law as a more accurate predictor of planetary temperatures, citing Venus and Mars as examples. Sodi also mentions a Mythbusters experiment to illustrate what he considers 'junk science' in climate change discussions. He concludes with a warning about the corruption of science through its integration into tax systems, citing Eisenhower's farewell address about the scientific-technological elite.
HCR1: Dr. Daniel Herman, retired physician with a specialty in Psychiatry Oppose04:59:57.040 - 1:28:53 PM; Dr. Daniel Herman opposes HCR1, arguing that it promotes a false equivalence between climate science and disinformation. He emphasizes that climate science is a robust, ongoing process involving researchers worldwide, supported by peer-reviewed journals and open to criticism and modification. Herman highlights the consensus among climate scientists that humans are causing global warming, referencing the American Association for the Advancement of Science's findings. He disputes the relevance of the ideal gas law to climate change, focusing instead on the effects of carbon dioxide on global temperatures and the urgent need for action to mitigate climate change risks. Herman also discusses the benefits of transitioning to green energy and expresses concern for future generations affected by current inaction on climate change.
HCR1: Wharton Sinkler from Sandwich, New Hampshire Oppose05:07:06.080 - 1:36:02 PM; Wharton Sinkler expressed opposition to HCR1, questioning the necessity of the resolution which calls on policymakers to consider all relevant information and factors pertaining to climate change. He argued that considering all relevant information should be a standard practice in legislative processes and not limited to climate change issues. Sinkler also criticized the resolution's 'whereas' section for making broad assertions about the suppression of climate perspectives, wrong climate predictions, and climate alarmism, which he feels could unjustly cast doubt on credible scientific findings, such as those from the state climatologist and NASA. He emphasized the importance of distinguishing between good science and misleading information, citing his experience in the scientific community and the fossil fuel industry, and concluded by calling the resolution poorly worded and urging the committee to find it inexpedient to legislate.
HCR1: Yur Matot, representing himself, currently working at Dartmouth College Information Only05:13:27.480 - 1:42:23 PM; Yur Matot, a retired professor from Germany with extensive experience in environmental and climate science, provided neutral testimony on HCR1. He emphasized the importance of considering all relevant information in climate change discussions, highlighting the need to address misperceptions and irrational behavior driven by public misunderstanding of climate issues. Matot stressed the importance of preparing for known and likely climate challenges and adapting to inevitable changes. He shared personal experiences in communicating climate science to laypeople and advocated for a calm and open discussion on the topic. He concluded by suggesting a 'no regret' approach to climate policy, ensuring that measures taken do not waste resources or cause harm, regardless of future climate outcomes.
HCR1: Committee Chair Information Only05:37:39.958 - 2:06:35 PM; The committee chair announced the closure of the public hearing on HCR1 and the transition to an executive session. The session was scheduled to address seven remaining measures, starting with HB 264 regarding Article 5 delegates.
HCR1: Committee Chair Information Only05:39:28.240 - 2:08:24 PM; The Committee Chair provided an overview of the proceedings, noting that the committee had spent considerable time discussing seven measures, allowing everyone who wished to testify the opportunity to do so. The Chair emphasized the importance of both in-person and online testimony, acknowledging the difficulty some people face in attending hearings, especially those from Berlin who have work commitments. The Chair expressed appreciation for all contributions and stated that the testimony is taken seriously.
HCR1: Representative Manion Support05:41:05.160 - 2:10:01 PM; Representative Manion moved to pass HB 264, which deals with Article 5 delegates. They supported the motion, arguing that the bill addresses concerns about 'runaway conventions' and ensures that delegates adhere to the intended purpose of their delegation. Manion believed the bill was a strong measure to alleviate public fears and should be passed.
HCR1: Representative Belzer Support05:41:05.160 - 2:10:01 PM; Representative Belzer seconded the motion for OTP on HB 264. They did not provide further comments on the motion.
HCR1: Representative Lane Information Only05:41:55.638 - 2:10:51 PM; Representative Lane expressed concerns about the potential for a 'runaway convention' and questioned the clarity of the bill's wording. They were particularly concerned about what would happen if a delegate from New Hampshire did not vote for a proposal that other states supported, questioning whether the felony penalty would apply if the delegate participated in the convention despite the proposal passing.
HCR1: Representative Manion Support05:43:28.798 - 2:12:24 PM; In response to Representative Lane's concerns, Representative Manion clarified that as long as the New Hampshire delegate votes against the unauthorized amendment, they would not be in violation of the law. Manion emphasized that the convention can only propose amendments, not adopt them, and thus the delegate's vote against a proposal would keep them in compliance with the bill.
HCR1: Representative Lloyd Information Only05:45:02.200 - 2:13:58 PM; Representative Lloyd raised a question about whether the bill would preclude delegates from voting against proposals at all. They expressed concerns about the implications of the felony penalty and sought clarification on the bill's intent and the potential consequences for delegates.
HCR1: Representative Gagy Information Only05:45:57.440 - 2:14:53 PM; Representative Gagy provided information on the class B felony penalty, stating that it carries a sentence of three and a half to seven years in prison. They interpreted the bill to mean that if all four New Hampshire delegates went against the state's directive, their actions would be moot, and they could potentially be charged with a class B felony.
HCR1: Representative Belzer Support05:53:13.520 - 2:22:09 PM; Representative Belzer moved to pass HCR3, which applies for a Convention of the States under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. They expressed skepticism about the success of reining in the federal government but saw no harm in trying and hoped to be proven wrong. They supported the motion for OTP on HCR3.
HCR1: Representative Manion Support05:53:28.360 - 2:22:24 PM; Representative Manion seconded the OTP motion on HCR3 and emphasized the urgency of addressing the national debt, which they viewed as a significant security threat. They believed that applying for a Convention of the States could help mitigate this issue and supported moving forward with the measure.
HCR1: Representative Cybert Oppose05:55:05.760 - 2:24:01 PM; Representative Cybert opposed the OTP motion on HCR3, expressing concerns about the constitutionality of an Article 5 convention. They argued that the convention was explicitly provided for in the U.S. Constitution and thus could not be more constitutional. They also noted that the measure had passed the committee in a bipartisan manner in the previous term but failed to pass the full house.
HCR1: Representative Cybert Support06:00:05.440 - 2:29:01 PM; Representative Cybert moved to pass HCR5, which would rescind House Concurrent Resolution 40 from 2012, requesting Congress to call a convention under Article 5. They supported the motion, mentioning that the original sponsor of the 2012 legislation had requested its rescission, and they felt it was important to honor such requests to avoid unintended consequences.
HCR1: Representative Budak Support06:00:51.120 - 2:29:47 PM; Representative Budak seconded the OTP motion on HCR5, agreeing with Representative Cybert's reasons for supporting the rescission of the 2012 resolution.
HCR1: Representative Belcher Information Only06:01:08.600 - 2:30:04 PM; Representative Belcher expressed his view on not rescinding the call for an Article 5 convention, emphasizing that narrowing its scope could be problematic. He also discussed the concept of legislative ownership, stating that once legislation is filed and voted on, it becomes the house's legislation, not just the member's. He argued against personal ownership of legislative measures.
HCR1: Representative Jones Information Only06:02:15.798 - 2:31:11 PM; Representative Jones indicated a change in his voting stance, mentioning that he voted against previous Article Five motions but would vote in favor of the current one to maintain consistency.
HCR1: Representative Manion Information Only06:04:17.840 - 2:33:13 PM; Representative Manion moved for an 'Inexpedient to Legislate' (ITL) on HCR5, explaining it as the inverse of supporting Article 5 and maintaining the application. This motion was made after a previous motion to pass HCR5 failed.
HCR1: Representative Belcher Information Only06:05:02.760 - 2:33:58 PM; Representative Belcher reiterated his opposition to rescinding the Article 5 convention call, arguing that it could conflict with their recent vote in favor of such a convention.
HCR1: Representative Belcher Information Only06:07:50.478 - 2:36:46 PM; Representative Belcher, as the prime sponsor of HJR1, moved for an 'Ought to Pass' (OTP) on the resolution. He explained the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of the resolution, contrasting relativistic ethics with a transcendent ethic based on Judeo-Christian values. He highlighted the importance of affirming natural rights and the role of government in protecting them.
HCR1: Representative Jones Information Only06:14:47.680 - 2:43:43 PM; Representative Jones asked for clarification on the procedural differences between a House Resolution (HR), House Concurrent Resolution (HCR), and House Joint Resolution (HJR). The chair explained that an HR is strictly a house product, an HCR involves both the house and the Senate, and an HJR, like HJR1, requires passage by both the house and Senate before going to the governor.
HCR1: Representative Gagney Support06:16:22.120 - 2:45:18 PM; Representative Gagney expressed appreciation for Representative Belcher's explanation of HJR1, indicating that it helped him understand the resolution better.
HCR1: Representative Bennett Support06:17:07.558 - 2:46:03 PM; Representative Bennett thanked Representative Belcher for the clarification and supported the resolution, emphasizing the importance of affirming unalienable rights and the careful choice of words to include everyone.
HCR1: Representative Lloyd Oppose06:17:55.478 - 2:46:51 PM; Representative Lloyd expressed agreement with the message behind HJR1 but questioned its necessity at the current time, indicating he would not vote in favor.
HCR1: Representative Saber Oppose06:18:42.320 - 2:47:38 PM; Representative Saber expressed opposition to HJR1, citing its redundancy with existing laws and discomfort with its references to Judeo-Christian values, which he felt blurred the line between church and state.
HCR1: Chair Information Only06:19:38.840 - 2:48:34 PM; The chair provided a procedural overview, stating that an OTP motion on HJR1 was on the table, which passed with a vote of 10 to 7. The chair also mentioned the expectation of a Majority Report from Representative Belcher and a Minority Report from Representative Saber or another member.
HCR1: Chair Information Only06:23:59.400 - 2:52:55 PM; The chair introduced an amendment (0318H) to HCR10, changing the word 'repeal' to 'reform' or 'reformation' regarding the Jones Act. The amendment was discussed and passed unanimously by a show of hands.
HCR1: Representative Manion Support06:27:56.520 - 2:56:52 PM; Representative Manion supported the amendment to HCR10, appreciating the change from 'repeal' to 'reform' and suggesting that the Jones Act needs an automatic system for reform due to frequent waivers during crises.
HCR1: Representative Belcher Support06:28:41.798 - 2:57:37 PM; Representative Belcher, a co-sponsor of the original HCR10, supported the amendment, stating it significantly improved the legislation. He highlighted New Hampshire's need for natural gas delivery by boat, which is hindered by the Jones Act and surrounding states' policies.
HCR1: Representative Jones Support06:30:15.958 - 2:59:11 PM; Representative Jones expressed support for the amendment to HCR10, noting that changing 'repeal' to 'reform' shifted the focus from mandating change to suggesting a review and fix. He had promised to vote for it if the amendment was made.
HCR1: Representative Lloyd Oppose06:31:01.760 - 2:59:57 PM; Representative Lloyd appreciated the amendment to HCR10 but stated he would still vote against it due to concerns about existing workarounds for the Jones Act, as mentioned during the testimony.
HCR1: Chair Information Only06:31:58.840 - 3:00:54 PM; The chair announced that the OTPA motion on HCR10, as amended, passed with a vote of 11 to 6, with one absent. The chair also mentioned the upcoming reports on the resolution, with Representative Moffett preparing the Majority Report and Representative Saber potentially preparing a Minority Report.
HCR1: Representative Belzer Support06:39:18.240 - 3:08:14 PM; Representative Belzer supports HCR1, emphasizing the importance of considering all perspectives in climate policy. They argue that the origin of catastrophic climate change concerns in the U.S. was influenced by Soviet active measures, and that nuclear energy, an effective solution, has been similarly targeted. Belzer expresses concern over economically harmful policies increasing electricity rates and destabilizing the Northeast grid, advocating for a broader discussion on the issue.
HCR1: Representative Gagy Support06:40:04.000 - 3:09:00 PM; Representative Gagy supports HCR1, emphasizing the need for a consensus on climate change policy. They believe that the resolution encourages all sides to come together and discuss the issue thoroughly, which is essential for effective policy-making.
HCR1: Representative Cyber Oppose06:40:49.398 - 3:09:45 PM; Representative Cyber opposes HCR1, arguing that the legislation uses inflammatory language and accuses one side of being alarmist, which they see as one-sided. They believe that their role is to be objective and consider multiple standpoints, and they feel the resolution does not align with this duty.
HCR1: Representative Dolan Information Only06:41:34.440 - 3:10:30 PM; Representative Dolan shares information about HB 453, which is under consideration in another committee. This bill would restrict the use of gasoline combustion motors for snow and ice removal, impacting both homeowners and municipal governments financially. They mention that this issue is relevant to the broader discussion of climate policy.
HCR1: Representative Lloyd Oppose06:44:47.840 - 3:13:43 PM; Representative Lloyd opposes HCR1, stating that they believe avenues for presenting both sides of the climate debate already exist. They appreciate the intent of the measure but feel it is unnecessary and that legislators should already be conducting due diligence on all perspectives.
HCR1: Representative Lane Oppose06:46:24.958 - 3:15:20 PM; Representative Lane opposes HCR1 due to its use of inflammatory language and finger-pointing, which they believe hinders constructive dialogue. They value the testimony heard but find the resolution's approach to be divisive rather than unifying.
HCR1: Representative Bennett Support06:51:54.958 - 3:20:50 PM; Representative Bennett supports HCR1, highlighting the need for open discussion on climate issues. They mention examples from testimony about government subsidies for green energy and question the long-term financial impact of such investments, like solar panels in schools, advocating for a comprehensive examination of all sides of the issue.
HCR1: Representative Manion Support06:53:30.440 - 3:22:26 PM; Representative Manion supports HCR1, focusing on the issue of climate anxiety among children. They argue that the fear instilled in younger generations over climate change is unwarranted and that a balanced discussion is necessary to address these concerns effectively.
HCR1: Representative from Gtown Support06:54:16.478 - 3:23:12 PM; The Representative from Gtown supports HCR1, emphasizing the need for transparency regarding government subsidies in the energy sector. They argue that these subsidies, funded by taxpayer money, influence the market and that an honest conversation about all aspects of climate policy is essential.
HCR1: Representative from Gtown Information Only06:54:16.478 - 3:23:12 PM; The representative concluded their previous statement at 06:54:16.478, which was just before the snippet provided.
HCR1: Representative Information Only06:55:04.798 - 3:24:00 PM; The speaker discussed the affordability of transitioning to green energy, mentioning a conversation with Mr. Gage about his use of an EV car and oil heating. The representative emphasized the need to find solutions for less fortunate individuals who may struggle with the costs associated with new green energy technologies.
HCR1: Representative Jones Oppose06:55:45.718 - 3:24:41 PM; Representative Jones expressed initial interest in the resolution based on its title but found the text to be too accusatory. They believed the document should be more impartial and thus would be opposing the resolution.
HCR1: Madam Chair Information Only06:56:31.520 - 3:25:27 PM; Madam Chair announced the final vote on the last measure, thanking the staff and committee members for their work. They mentioned that all assigned measures had been processed, and they would work on reports and prepare for upcoming sessions and potential Senate measures.
HCR1: Vice Chairman Rollins and other Representatives Information Only06:57:16.878 - 3:26:12 PM; The vote on the measure was conducted with the results announced as 10 in favor, 7 against, and one absent. The committee concluded their work on all assigned measures, with plans to work on reports and prepare for future sessions.

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)