Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I know that running from the scoring of the NRA won't stop a bullet.
• <08:33:06.080> scoring<08:33:06.760> of<08:33:07.760> the<08:33:08.080> NRA

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, June 3, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm extremely aware of the anti-NRA sentiments down there.
• I'm extremely aware of the anti-NRA sentiments down there.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 167, which would add ski, snowboard, and boat wax containing PFAS to the state’s consumer-product restrictions. The sponsor argued the product is already banned in many places, has PFAS-free alternatives, and is used in ways that can directly contaminate water rather than landfills. She cited high PFAS levels in several New Hampshire lakes and said the bill was a simple extension of prior PFAS legislation. A witness also described a personal experience where a liquid ski wax disappeared from the market and later returned, likely because of PFAS concerns. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 167 without a vote. The committee then opened a hearing on House Bill 312, dealing with college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. Representative Moffett said the bill was modeled on New Jersey law and intended to let student-athletes earn compensation from NIL without losing institutional scholarships, while also requiring licensed representation and setting limits on certain endorsements. He described the measure as proactive because NIL rules are evolving and could create conflicts among schools and future lawsuits. Members questioned whether the bill should apply to two-year institutions, whether it should exclude firearms and weapons, and whether the scholarship protections would cover need-based or academic aid as well as athletic scholarships. Moffett said the scholarship language was intended to protect scholarships generally, but not need-based aid specifically, and he acknowledged discomfort with some of the endorsement restrictions. Public testimony on HB 312 was mixed. One supporter, a former Division III athlete and coach, backed the bill but urged removal of a section allowing institutions or athletic bodies to use an athlete’s NIL without compensation, arguing most New Hampshire athletes do not receive NIL money and should not have to work extra jobs to cover basic expenses. The chair also raised concerns about the bill’s contractual and identity-rights implications, referencing prior committee work on a J.D. Salinger-related identity case and noting the committee had previously declined to get involved in similar contractual disputes. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Criminal Background Check System that was actually instituted many, many years ago at the request of the NRA
• Instant Criminal Background Check System, which was instituted many years ago at the request of the NRA

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• you threw out because I don't have a basis for questioning that, but uh I mean you seem to ask the NRA

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Criminal Background Check System that was actually instituted many, many years ago at the request of the NRA

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 146, which would require longer retention and quicker disclosure of certain video recordings from traffic stops and similar motor vehicle violations when a citation is disputed. The prime sponsor described the bill as a response to a constituent who challenged a speeding ticket but could not obtain a cruiser video before it was deleted under the current 30-day retention practice. Supporters argued the bill is about fairness and access to potentially exculpatory evidence, and one member suggested a simple 60-day retention period might avoid confusion over different timelines. The sponsor also noted that the bill would not affect criminal cases and that victims and complainants should have access to the same evidence as law enforcement when a recording is relevant to a defense. Major Brendan Davey of the New Hampshire State Police testified in opposition. He said the proposal would create a different discovery standard for one type of evidence, could discourage agencies from adopting body-worn or cruiser cameras, and would add cost and administrative burden. He explained that the State Police already retain routine traffic-stop videos for at least 30 days, but keep videos much longer when complaints or possible litigation are involved, and said the current system balances efficiency with accountability. He also argued the underlying speeding case did not make the trooper video directly material to the citation, though he acknowledged the legislature could choose a longer blanket retention period if it wished. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then opened a public hearing on House Bill 638, which would allow people serving life without parole sentences to become eligible for a parole hearing at age 60 after serving at least 18 years, provided they have had no major conduct violations in the prior 10 years. The sponsor said the bill is intended to give a narrow second look to a small number of elderly prisoners, citing the high cost of incarceration and the health challenges of aging in prison. He emphasized that the bill would not automatically release anyone, would not apply to capital murder convictions under RSA 630:1, and would still allow victims to participate in the parole process. Testimony on HB 638 was mixed. Alexander Bailey, a survivor of violent crime and domestic violence advocate, supported the bill, saying many survivors favor rehabilitation, second chances, and restorative justice, and that people in prison often age faster and face serious health and safety problems. Another supporter, Russell Roy, began offering a personal story about crime, addiction, and violence in Concord, but the transcript cuts off before his full remarks. Committee members asked about why age 60 was chosen, how released individuals would support themselves, and whether victims or families would be consulted; the sponsor said 60 was meant to limit eligibility and reflect the health realities of prison, and that parole boards already consider support networks and victim input. No action or vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• He added that, as someone who used to live in New Jersey, he is extremely aware of the anti-NRA sentiments

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 167, a PFAS-related measure to add ski, snowboard, and boat wax to the state’s list of banned consumer products containing PFAS. The sponsor said the product is already banned in many other places, alternatives exist, and the concern is that these products go directly into water rather than landfills. She cited high PFAS levels in several New Hampshire lakes and argued the bill would help stop further contamination. A member of the public also described personal experience with ski wax products disappearing from the market, suggesting PFAS may have been the reason. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 167. The committee next opened a hearing on House Bill 312, dealing with college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. Representative Moffett explained the bill was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision and was modeled on New Jersey law. He said the bill would prevent colleges from restricting NIL compensation, require athletes to use licensed attorneys or registered sports agents, and limit certain endorsements involving addictive drugs, adult entertainment, firearms, and weapons. He framed the measure as a proactive response to a changing college sports landscape and noted possible future conflicts involving schools, agents, and endorsements. Committee members raised several concerns and suggested changes. One member questioned the bill’s exclusion of two-year institutions, another objected to the weapons restriction, and others asked how the bill would affect scholarships. The sponsor said the intent was to protect scholarships, especially athletic scholarships, and clarified that need-based scholarships were not meant to be affected. He also acknowledged discomfort with the endorsement restrictions and said the committee might want to broaden or revise the language. The hearing remained open for further consideration, with no vote taken in the excerpt.