Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Hampshire don't don't support this well Hampshire don't don't support this well I<02:49:03.960><
• Thank you very much, sir. can detect life well before 24 can detect life well before 24 months<03:01:
• </c><03:05:59.120><c> evidence-based</c> that well-informed evidence-based that well-informed evidence-based
• </c><03:19:18.760><c> safety</c><03:19:19.239><c> and</c> mental well-being safety and mental well-being
• </c> um that's that's all I have to say well um that's that's all I have to say well I'm<03:32:58.319

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened with procedural remarks, including notice of an overflow room and a brief apology from Representative Andress about returning to his seat after introducing HB 114. The committee then took up HB 476, a proposed 15-week abortion ban. Chairman Lynn explained that a request to withdraw the bill had been filed, but because the bill was already scheduled for hearing, the committee would proceed with testimony and the withdrawal would require later House action. The chair also reminded witnesses to keep remarks to three minutes and asked the audience to remain respectful. Most testimony focused on abortion access, maternal health, and the likely effects of a 15-week limit. Opponents, including Nancy Pariser, Dr. Cynthia Rasmussen, Dr. Young, Bonnie Bruno, and others, argued that abortion restrictions increase maternal mortality, worsen miscarriage care, create “OB deserts,” and can delay emergency treatment in cases such as sepsis or ectopic pregnancy. Several speakers cited experiences from Texas and Georgia and warned that HB 476 contained no exceptions for rape, incest, or maternal health. Supporters of the bill, including Paul Galasso and Lynn Hill, framed abortion as the loss of unborn life and argued that 15 weeks still allows most abortions while saving lives; they also said New Hampshire’s current law is already adequate and that the bill should be strengthened rather than abandoned. Other witnesses emphasized practical and economic concerns, saying unwanted pregnancies can worsen poverty, childcare burdens, housing insecurity, and women’s lifetime earnings. Some speakers urged lawmakers to focus instead on affordable housing, childcare, and family support. No committee vote or final action on HB 476 occurred during the hearing; the meeting consisted of opening remarks and public testimony only.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, we are all going to say.
• Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
• </c><00:42:51.359><c> Well,</c> able to compete with China. Well, able to compete with China.
• </c> broader Rockland community as well. broader Rockland community as well.
• Well, thank you, Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, now it's been 20.
• Well, Mr. body for failing to act. Well, Mr.
• Well, thank you, Mr.
• Well, that was stupid.
• Well, that was stupid. It was dumb Well, that was stupid.

Transcript Highlights:

• > a</c> while well-intentioned, presents a while well-intentioned, presents a significant<00:40:24.160
• Um, well played. I would say, Mr.
• </c><05:02:19.680><c> as</c> tax credits and exemptions, as well as tax credits and exemptions, as well
• </c> system that has served our nation well. system that has served our nation well.
• </c><05:42:09.360><c> The</c> benefit from this bill as well. The benefit from this bill as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> going to serve their community as well. going to serve their community as well.
• Well, in my Yes. Um, in your opinion? Well, in my opinion,<04:09:27.359><c> yes.
• </c> well-meaning act of judicial overreach. well-meaning act of judicial overreach.
• </c> biological outcome, well, that's okay. biological outcome, well, that's okay.
• A lot of good food as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:26:37.919><c> And</c> well, so we're well verssed in that.
• And well, so we're well verssed in that.
• </c> well-established human health impacts. well-established human health impacts.
• </c> to the committee as well. to the committee as well. &gt;&gt; Great.
• Well, guess what? could have a kid have? Well, guess what?

Committee: House Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 1281, which would establish standards and voluntary certification for agency-owned “facility comfort dogs” used by police and other public safety agencies. Representative Morton, the prime sponsor, said the bill is intended to create a consistent statewide framework because different departments currently use different policies. He emphasized that the bill is meant to distinguish comfort dogs from service animals, emotional support animals, and therapy dogs, and noted that a small amendment may be needed to make that distinction clearer. He also said the bill is timely under the ADA because comfort dogs fall outside service-animal protections, but still need training standards for public safety and consistency. Committee members questioned whether the bill was too detailed and whether the legislature should be setting rules on matters like training methods, diet, and breeding. Laura Barker of Hero Pups, who helped train New Hampshire’s first police comfort dog, supported the idea of a minimum standard but said the bill should be less prescriptive and should not interfere with therapy dogs or private handlers. She explained that comfort dogs vary in temperament and deployment needs, that raw diets raise zoonotic disease concerns, and that the program should remain voluntary and not cost the state money. Detective Michelle Jones of Portsmouth Police opposed the bill as written, saying the term “facility comfort dog” is confusing, the bill is overly restrictive, and some provisions go beyond what should be mandated by statute; she suggested a more flexible, guideline-based approach and noted that departments already have their own SOPs and can enforce them internally. Justin Brassen of the Manchester Police Department also testified, describing the history of comfort dog programs in New Hampshire and the work of a prior subcommittee formed through the governor’s commission on PTSD among first responders. He said there are currently no statewide standards and that the earlier study involved police, fire, EMS, dispatch, corrections, and NAMI New Hampshire, with the goal of creating a thoughtful work product. He agreed the bill needs work and answered questions about how departments handle training and public access. By the end of the hearing, members and witnesses discussed possible amendments, and one committee member suggested the bill may be better handled through interim study because of the amount of work still needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> as well. as well.
• Well done. And with is truly exciting. Well done.
• Well done.
• Well done.
• </c> to avoid as well. to avoid as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, it depends on who you ask.
• </c> move that as well? move that as well?
• Cannot hear in the well.
• Cannot hear in the well.
• </c> one, four, and five CL wells. one, four, and five CL wells.

Transcript Highlights:

• Award in Comprehensive Wellness.
• ><c> family</c> wellness, financial wellness, and family wellness, financial wellness, and family programming
• </c> wellness exams and cancer screenings. wellness exams and cancer screenings.
• </c> than well-received award. than well-received award.
• </c> it as well. Thank you and I yield back. it as well. Thank you and I yield back.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> >> Well, Mr.
• ,</c><03:21:37.040><c> well,</c> the developers are like, well, well, the developers are like, well,
• Well, we rent. Let’s see.
• Well, whoa, no. I said, Swim in it?" Well, whoa, no.
• </c> subcommittee as well. subcommittee as well.

Committee: House Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> committee as well. committee as well.
• </c> and I imagine Tay you'll hear, oh well and I imagine Tay you'll hear, oh well this<01:52:34.960>
• ,</c><03:21:37.040><c> well,</c> the developers are like, well, well, the developers are like, well,
• Thanks, Ivy Van. because it'd be like, well, wait a because it'd be like, well, wait a minute.<03:47:
• </c> subcommittee as well. subcommittee as well.

Committee: House Housing

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on HB 1065, a housing bill that would clarify when multifamily and mixed-use housing may be allowed on commercially zoned land, define infrastructure standards, and preserve municipal discretion over where such development can occur. Prime sponsor Representative David Priest said the bill is intended to help address the housing shortage by using already developed commercial areas without overriding local planning. The New Hampshire Municipal Association, through Brody Dees, said it supports the bill and views it as a priority, but noted it is still discussing related language with stakeholders and wants clearer definitions for multifamily development, infrastructure, and adaptive reuse while preserving local control over commercial land use. Testimony was mixed. Ivy Van, a certified planner, opposed the bill because she said the infrastructure language is too restrictive and could exclude properties served by private utilities or septic systems. Chris Freeman, a housing provider, was generally supportive but recommended technical changes, arguing the infrastructure definition may be too broad and that the adaptive reuse language could unintentionally block useful building modifications. He said the bill should be clarified so it does not discourage reuse projects. The committee then moved to discussion of an accessory dwelling unit bill, with Representative Turkot describing changes that would shift some ADU approvals from a matter of right to conditional use or special exception, allow municipalities more control over attached versus detached units, set parking standards tied to single-family dwellings, and adjust size limits. He argued the bill would restore local discretion and prevent ADUs from becoming primarily rental units. Representative Reed pushed back, saying detached ADUs can help meet housing needs and provide opportunities for small landlords, while other members questioned how the bill would affect existing detached structures and breezeways. No votes were taken in the excerpt, and the chair also noted a recess and time limits for later testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I'll ask him. Thank you.
• Well, I could very well be mistaken. It's in Londonderry, I believe. Okay, I'm mistaken.
• ><02:20:53.600><c> young</c><02:20:53.760><c> Farmer's</c> well I could very well young Farmer's well
• She was very well versed in farm animals. The State Vet was there as well.
• Well, all right, you're free.

Summary: The committee met in a work session on several environmental bills, beginning with HP 152, which would prohibit the sale and use of adhesive-based rodent traps. Members discussed whether the bill should be amended to allow professional pest control use while restricting retail sales to the public. Testimony and member comments focused on animal welfare concerns, the relative humaneness and effectiveness of glue traps versus snap traps, consumer education, enforcement difficulties, and whether the bill should instead be limited to professionals. No vote was taken on HP 152 during the discussion. The committee then turned to HB 171, establishing a moratorium on new landfill permits. Representative Gruber distributed an amendment shortening the proposed moratorium from five years to three years as a compromise. Members supporting the moratorium said it would give the Department of Environmental Services time to update rules and reflect recent landfill-siting reforms, while opponents argued that three years was too long, could tie the hands of a future legislature, and might be difficult to pass in the Senate. Others noted the House, Senate, and governor had each discussed different lengths of moratorium, making the bill a likely bargaining position in later negotiations. Throughout the landfill discussion, members emphasized that the three-year version was intended as a middle ground between a one-year proposal associated with the governor and a six-year Senate bill. Several members said the moratorium reflected years of bipartisan work on solid waste and landfill policy and would help create time for new rules to take effect. The transcript provided does not show a final committee vote or other action on HB 171 during this segment.

Transcript Highlights:

• <c> I</c><01:08:07.200><c> can,</c> &gt;&gt; Well, if So, if I can, &gt;&gt; Well, if So, if I can, &
• </c><04:11:34.800><c> Um,</c> security as well. Um, security as well.
• I think Alabama was in that list as well. Well, I'm going to talk about Pennsylvania in a minute.
• to</c> that list as well.
• Well, I'm going to that list as well.

Committee: House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services

Summary: The committee began with procedural announcements about report turnaround, amendment submission methods during split operations, a possible January 29 session, the governor’s State of the State on February 5, parking, cafeteria opening, and the plan to finish work by February 10. It then moved into executive session on HB 1123, which would require certain companies to post salary ranges on public job listings. Representative Granger moved ITL, arguing the bill would interfere with negotiations, especially for higher-level jobs, and raise compelled-speech concerns. Supporters, including Representatives Schultz, Sullivan, Cahill, Staub, and others, said salary ranges help applicants avoid wasted time and travel, improve transparency, and are already a common workplace disclosure. The committee voted 10-9 to ITL HB 1123. The committee next took up HB 177, concerning a definition of remote work in labor law. Representative Murphy moved ITL, saying the bill could burden employers, create vague obligations, duplicate existing protections, and potentially require intrusive compliance measures. Representative Sullivan described a proposed amendment that would narrow the bill to a definition of remote work and remove broader requirements, but the committee ultimately voted 11-9 to ITL HB 177. Members also noted that the amendment had not been fully circulated in time and that the issue might merit further review. Finally, the committee opened HB 1352, a workers’ compensation bill focused on repricing and payment practices. The sponsor withdrew an initial ITL motion and moved OTP after amendment review. Members discussed concerns raised at the hearing about delayed payments, third-party administrators, and the need for better accountability. Representative McKenzie’s amendment would define good faith, create a voluntary three-year dispute-resolution pilot, restore fines to prior levels, and add reporting/accountability requirements for carriers that miss the 30-day payment deadline. Several members supported the amendment as a way to help small businesses and providers, while others said repricing needed broader study through the workers’ compensation advisory council. The Department of Labor explained that the amendment would require carriers and related payers to report missed determinations to the department and would increase oversight of payment timeliness.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I will say just in the interest of time, well as we heard from our regular well as we heard from
• </c> College as well as line worker programs. College as well as line worker programs.
• Well done. All So again, we thank you. Well done.
• </c> going to look at this location as well. going to look at this location as well.
• I I don't see the market as well.

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, if Well, it yeah, it could.
• Well, somebody else this fell All right. Well, somebody else this fell here.<01:11:43.679><c> Okay.
• </c> our communities as well as the state. our communities as well as the state.
• Well, I'm not Representative R.
• </c> lakes, and private wells. lakes, and private wells.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 733, a third-party litigation financing reporting bill. Representative Cole explained that the bill shifts reporting from the Secretary of State to the courts, which he said removes the fiscal note and helps insurers obtain information for underwriting and premium-setting. The committee accepted the explanation and voted ought to pass; the roll call was 8-0 in favor, with one member taking a pause. The committee then heard House Bill 219, dealing with the renewable portfolio standard and the renewable energy fund. Representative Bose argued the bill would reduce electricity costs by lowering the REC purchase obligation from 220,000 to 170,000, which he said would reduce payments into the renewable energy fund by roughly $1 million to $2 million and save consumers only pennies a month. After questions about timing and whether to wait for a DOE report, the committee voted to retain the bill for further discussion rather than advance it; the motion to retain passed 5-4. House Bill 365 was then discussed as an election-related bill intended to help verify citizenship for voter registration and create a voucher process for people who cannot afford a birth certificate. The sponsor said the Secretary of State may be able to use federal and state databases to verify citizenship, and if not, indigent applicants could receive a voucher reimbursed by the state, with a $25,000 appropriation included. Members raised concerns about the Secretary of State’s access to databases and the bill’s timing and cost, and the committee decided to hold the bill until Secretary Scanlan could come testify. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 552, which updates retiree health coverage rules so dependent children can remain on the plan until age 26, consistent with the Affordable Care Act. DAS officials said retirees pay the full cost for dependents, about $1,000 per month, while the state covers only the retiree and spouse. The committee voted ought to pass unanimously, 9-0. The committee then began discussion of House Bill 572, a housing bill aimed at missing-middle housing, describing a voluntary program to identify developable public land, support construction, and streamline review, but the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> previously like two years ago about well previously like two years ago about well how<00:15:14.240
• </c><00:22:47.320><c> but</c> this is working particularly well but this is working particularly well
• Well, how about age?
• </c> as well as well but<01:18:56.320><c> I</c><01:18:56.400><c> don't</c><01:18:56.520><c> know</c><
• </c> questions and you covered it so well questions and you covered it so well there<02:36:33.359><c>

Committee: House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs

Summary: The House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs heard testimony on House Bill 606, as amended, a bill aimed at preventing physicians from denying medically necessary sterilizing or fertility-affecting treatment based on a patient’s age, number of children, marital status, or a doctor’s speculation about future reproductive intentions. Representative Ellen Reed, the sponsor, described the bill as a response to her own long experience with PCOS, heavy bleeding, and repeated refusals by doctors to perform a hysterectomy despite her clear wishes. She said the amendment narrows the bill to medically necessary care, adds definitions for “medical condition” and “appropriate reproductive care,” and removes earlier provisions about voluntary sterilization referrals. She also said the bill does not target religious objections, and that doctors could still refuse for medical, payment, or existing religious reasons not addressed by the bill. Committee members asked about religious freedom, informed consent versus waivers, and the scope of the new definitions. Reed responded that religion was not added to the list of prohibited reasons for denial, and that the amendment is intended to protect doctors when patients sign informed consent or waivers. She explained that “appropriate reproductive care” includes procedures such as hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, salpingectomy, and endometrial ablation, and that the bill now focuses on medically necessary treatment rather than elective sterilization. She said the change was intended to make the proposal narrower and more tailored after earlier concerns. Several witnesses supported the bill with personal accounts of being denied hysterectomies or other procedures despite serious symptoms. Representative Lauren Selig described a decade-long effort to obtain a hysterectomy after years of cycle problems and migraines, saying doctors dismissed her concerns and treated her symptoms as normal. Jade Flad also testified in support, saying she had long been told to simply endure her cycle problems and noted that her husband was offered a vasectomy without similar barriers. The sponsor said online support was strong and that there was little or no written opposition testimony. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:22:47.320><c> but</c> this is working particularly well but this is working particularly well
• Well, I mean, I know that his duties have changed, so right. Yeah, well...
• That is our understanding as well.
• That is our understanding as well.
• That is our understanding as well.

Committee: House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> uh encountered if it's delayed well uh encountered if it's delayed well thank<01:01:39.720><c> you
• </c> commitment to protecting the well-being commitment to protecting the well-being of<01:24:15.719>
• </c> going they're going to stop that as well going they're going to stop that as well I<02:27:48.520
• </c> that are really suicidal and uh well that are really suicidal and uh well because<02:39:25.520><
• </c><03:23:20.040><c> of</c> risks to the safety and well-being of risks to the safety and well-being

Committee: House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• well.
• wells as well as what the price will be doing.
• That well can again become a stripper well.
• well to hit that stripper well status.
• order to shut that well or plug that well.

Summary: The Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met with a quorum, approved the March 17, 2026 minutes, and heard a lengthy update from Tax Commissioner Brian Croshys on property tax relief programs. He reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting increased relief after House Bill 1158 and House Bill 1176, but also discussing how some households “income adjust out” of eligibility over time. Members asked about indexing income thresholds, expanding eligibility by age alone, simplifying administration, county-level notices, and whether the county and state systems could be streamlined. Croshys said the programs are heavily used, largely administered at the county level, and that the department is still refining compliance and reporting; he also said there were no material findings or overarching concerns in the latest review. The committee agreed more detailed PRC information would likely come back in a September meeting, and the chair announced an afternoon recess for lunch before later reconvening. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase report, the zero-growth report, and a statistical report on property values and tax levies by class. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and identified counties and cities with the largest percentage changes in growth or decline. She also summarized recent trends: agricultural values remain relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed values have risen over the last five years; in 2025, residential property accounted for the largest share of statewide property tax levies, followed by commercial, agriculture, and centrally assessed property. Committee members asked about unusual zero-growth figures, the effect of annexation and land-use changes, and whether the 3% levy cap was forcing political subdivisions to use reserves or defer spending. Myers said many counties complied by using reserves, delaying capital projects, or limiting increases, and that some counties had not used their full cap. The committee then moved to the stripper oil extraction tax exemption. Commissioner Croshys reviewed the state’s oil tax structure and estimated the revenue impact of keeping stripper wells exempt from extraction tax while still paying production tax. He said the exemption saves operators hundreds of millions of dollars over a biennium, while the state still collects production tax on those wells. He also discussed projected impacts if the exemption were changed for future wells and noted that future outcomes depend on oil prices, production declines, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly explained the historical difference between the 35-barrel and 30-barrel thresholds for certain wells, citing differences in completion costs and lateral lengths. The committee then heard from EERC CEO Charles Gorecki, who presented an analysis of oil well life cycles and said most oil is produced before wells reach stripper status, but that refracturing or other reinvestment can significantly extend production and keep wells above the threshold for years.

Transcript Highlights:

• It involves some estimates as well with production from stripper wells as well as what the price will
• wells as well as what the price will be doing. and from stripper wells as well as what the price will
• That well can again become a stripper well.
• well status.
• in order to shut that well or plug that well.

Committee: Joint Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee