Committee Summary for House Transportation (02/18/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB758 00:19:38.039 - 8:48:39 AM	Public Hearing	establishing a committee to study airport operation hours.	Dupont, Pierre(R)[B]2025
HB489 00:30:58.880 - 8:59:59 AM	Public Hearing	allowing volunteer emergency workers to use a rear facing blue light on their private vehicles when involved in emergency service.	Nalevanko, Rich(R)[B+]2025
HB533 00:46:44.359 - 9:15:45 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the use of civilian employees in commercial truck inspections.	Trottier, Douglas(R)[IN]2025
HB594 01:03:48.680 - 9:32:49 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the definition of a way.	Roy, Terry(R)[B]2025
HB632 01:21:46.760 - 9:50:47 AM	Public Hearing	permitting health care providers affiliated with the Veterans Administration to certify medical accommodations on behalf of veterans residing in New Hampshire.	Giasson, Henry(R)[A+]2025
HB452 01:43:06.800 - 10:12:07 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the issuance of drivers' licenses for aliens temporarily residing in New Hampshire.	Walsh, Thomas(R)[B-]2025
HB209 04:49:13.400 - 1:18:14 PM	Executive Session	allowing a new vehicle purchased in the model year or before to be inspected in the second year after purchase.	Coker, Matthew(R)[C]2025
HB439 04:52:08.520 - 1:21:09 PM	Executive Session	relative to non-driving related violations and driver's license suspension.	Veilleux, Daniel(D)[F]2025
HB452 FN 04:54:27.520 - 1:23:28 PM	Executive Session	relative to the issuance of drivers' licenses for aliens temporarily residing in New Hampshire.	Walsh, Thomas(R)[B-]2025
HB649 05:05:32.480 - 1:34:33 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to motor vehicle registration and registration fees pertaining to the rental fleet passenger vehicle registration program and motor vehicle inspections.	Granger, Michael(R)[A+]2025
HB715 05:34:22.440 - 2:03:23 PM	Executive Session	relative to personal electric vehicles.	Gould, Linda(R)[B+]2025
HB305 05:51:54.360 - 2:20:55 PM	Executive Session	relative to speed and red-light cameras for traffic enforcement.	Jones, Philip(D)[CT]2025
HB390 05:54:28.680 - 2:23:29 PM	Executive Session	relative to adding retired fire apparatus (fire trucks) to antique vehicle exemptions.	Pearson, Stephen(R)[B-]2025
HB419 05:58:56.558 - 2:27:57 PM	Executive Session	requiring vehicle headlights to be on when windshield wipers are also on.	Jones, Philip(D)[CT]2025

HB758: Representative Seth Miller, Strafford 21 Information Only00:19:38.039 - 8:48:39 AM; Representative Seth Miller introduced House Bill 758, which aims to establish a committee to study airport operation hours in New Hampshire. The committee would include members from both the House and the Senate. The study's objectives include exploring noise abatement measures during airport operation hours, identifying appropriate federal authorities for noise abatement, and considering the feasibility of prohibiting flights between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The study will also evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of such a prohibition and involve discussions with stakeholders.
HB758: Trisha Lambert, Administrator, Bureau of Aeronautics, New Hampshire Department of Transportation Information Only00:21:09.559 - 8:50:10 AM; Trisha Lambert provided technical information regarding the impact of House Bill 758. She highlighted that out of the 25 public airports in New Hampshire, 12 are federally funded and have grant assurances requiring them to remain open during the proposed restricted hours (12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.). She mentioned that the majority of cargo, particularly at Manchester, the third largest cargo airport in New England, arrives during these hours, and restricting operations could disrupt these services. Lambert also discussed existing noise mitigation programs, like the noise abatement program in Manchester, which provided upgrades to homes based on noise contour lines. She explained the role of her bureau, which includes acting as a liaison for FAA funds, managing smaller airport operations, collecting revenue from aircraft registration, responding to aircraft accidents, and managing the Alton Bay ice runway.
HB758: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:23:53.600 - 8:52:54 AM; An unnamed committee member asked about the impact of noise abatement restrictions on federally funded airports, to which Lambert responded that the federal government could demand the return of funds on a prorated basis if operations were curtailed.
HB758: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:24:33.039 - 8:53:34 AM; Another unnamed committee member inquired about the role of the Bureau of Aeronautics. Lambert detailed the bureau's responsibilities, including managing FAA funds, acting as the FAA for smaller airports, handling aircraft registration, responding to accidents, and managing the Alton Bay ice runway.
HB758: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:26:06.159 - 8:55:07 AM; A committee member asked about the potential impact of the bill on EAS funding for central air service, to which Lambert responded that Lebanon is the only airport in the state receiving EAS funding, and she would need to check if their operations extend past midnight.
HB489: Rich Nano, Cheshire District 9 (including the towns of Alstead, Gilsum, Marlow, and Stoddard) Support00:30:58.880 - 8:59:59 AM; Representative Rich Nano, the prime sponsor of House Bill 489, introduced the bill to the Transportation Committee. He explained that the bill aims to correct an inconsistency in existing legislation, RSA 266:78-B, which currently allows rear-facing blue lights on ambulances and fire trucks but not on vehicles operated by volunteer emergency workers. HB489 seeks to extend this privilege to all first responders, including volunteers, to enhance their visibility and safety during emergency situations. He emphasized that the bill incurs no cost to the state or towns as volunteers typically fund their own emergency lights. Representative Nano highlighted the importance of this bill, especially in rural areas like those he represents, where sudden road conditions can pose significant risks. He urged the committee to support the bill, stressing its importance for the safety and effectiveness of emergency responders across the state.
HB489: Representative Miller Information Only00:34:37.320 - 9:03:38 AM; Representative Miller asked a clarifying question regarding the existing legislation that requires blue lights on private vehicles owned or leased by law enforcement officers to be covered when driven by non-law enforcement personnel. He inquired whether a similar requirement would apply to the lights proposed in HB489 when not in use by volunteers. Representative Nano responded that the lights should either be turned off or covered when not in use during an emergency situation.
HB489: Unnamed Representative Information Only00:36:00.720 - 9:05:01 AM; An unnamed representative asked for clarification on why blue lights were requested in the bill instead of red lights, noting that existing legislation already allows red lights for firefighters and EMS. Representative Nano explained that the bill aims to extend the use of blue lights to volunteers who are not currently covered under existing legislation. He deferred to Gordon Kemp for further clarification, who confirmed that the bill simply adds volunteers to those permitted to use blue lights, aligning with previous legislative changes.
HB489: Gordon Kemp, Alstead (Selectman, licensed emergency medical responder, member of Alstead Ambulance, and firefighter with Alstead and Acworth Fire Departments) Support00:37:36.560 - 9:06:37 AM; Gordon Kemp testified in support of HB489, affirming Representative Nano's statements and offering himself for any further questions from the committee. He did not provide additional details beyond what had already been covered by Representative Nano.
HB489: Clair, unknown town Information Only00:38:05.720 - 9:07:06 AM; Clair addressed the committee to discuss the visibility and effectiveness of blue lights compared to red lights in emergency vehicles. He mentioned that the amendment in 2015 allowed law enforcement to use red lights and noted that blue lights are more effective in cutting through inclement weather conditions like fog and snow. He clarified that the legislation is not about respect but about visibility and effectiveness.
HB489: Representative Pondon, unknown town Information Only00:38:54.720 - 9:07:55 AM; Representative Pondon expressed concerns about the use of blue lights being traditionally associated with law enforcement, potentially causing confusion among the public. He questioned the possibility of using a combination of red, blue, and yellow or amber lights for better visibility, suggesting that the public might mistake blue lights for law enforcement presence in tense situations.
HB489: Unknown speaker, unknown town Support00:39:44.000 - 9:08:45 AM; The speaker supported the visibility issue of using blue lights but expressed uncertainty about using blue lights exclusively. They clarified that the proposed legislation would only add a single rear-facing blue light to emergency vehicles that already use red lights, maintaining 360-degree visibility. They emphasized that this addition would help cut through clutter and inclement weather, similar to the use on fire trucks and ambulances.
HB489: Matt Uchi, New Hampshire State Police Oppose00:41:12.960 - 9:10:13 AM; Matt Uchi, representing the New Hampshire State Police, opposed the bill citing public safety and trust issues. He argued that increasing blue lights on roadways would lead to misidentification and confusion, as blue lights have historically been reserved for law enforcement and specific first responder vehicles. He expressed concerns that allowing blue lights on private vehicles used by emergency responders would desensitize the public to the significance of blue lights.
HB489: Representative Miller, unknown town Information Only00:42:10.200 - 9:11:11 AM; Representative Miller questioned the potential negative impacts of allowing blue lights on emergency responder vehicles, suggesting that these responders deserve the same visibility protection as structured emergency vehicles. He sought clarification on whether the issue was with the type of vehicles used or the responders themselves. The response emphasized the potential desensitization of the public to blue lights if used on a variety of vehicles.
HB533: Representative Foot, unknown town Information Only00:46:44.359 - 9:15:45 AM; Representative Foot introduced House Bill 533, which allows the Division of State Police to use civilian automotive equipment inspectors for certain inspections. The bill also authorizes officers from the Department of Safety or other law enforcement agents to enter commercial premises during regular business hours to conduct compliance reviews, safety audits, or investigations related to commercial truck inspections. This bill was introduced at the request of the Department of Safety.
HB533: Bob Scully, New Hampshire Motor Transport Association Information Only00:48:00.839 - 9:17:01 AM; Bob Scully from the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association initially intended to oppose the bill due to confusion about where the equipment inspectors would conduct their work. He mentioned past issues with civilian employees involved in commercial truck inspections, particularly in the CDL application process. However, after clarification that these inspectors would not be involved in commercial motor vehicle areas, he stated that they have no position on the bill as long as this remains the case. If the inspectors were to be involved in commercial areas, they would strongly oppose the bill. He emphasized their good relationship with the state police and a preference for state police involvement in truck inspections.
HB533: Colonel Heston Rec, New Hampshire State Police Support00:49:04.760 - 9:18:05 AM; Colonel Heston Rec from the New Hampshire State Police supported the bill and clarified its two separate components. The first part adds 'automotive equipment inspector' to the list of authorized personnel under RSA 266:1-a to enforce motor vehicle inspection laws and rules. The second part adds 'new entrance safety audit' and 'compliance review' to RSA 266:72-a, related to motor carrier enforcement. He explained that these additions were requested by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to clarify the right of entry for certified inspectors during business hours for record examination and investigations. He emphasized that automotive equipment inspectors would not conduct commercial motor vehicle inspections, and responded to questions about the roles and distinctions between various types of inspections and audits.
HB533: Representative, unknown town Information Only00:53:42.400 - 9:22:43 AM; The representative sought clarification on the difference between a compliance review and a new entrance safety audit. Colonel Heston Rec explained that a new entrance safety audit is conducted for motor carriers that have received a DOT number within the last 16 months, and it is non-enforcement oriented. In contrast, a compliance review actively seeks out deficiencies or violations of state law or federal regulations.
HB533: Representative London, unknown town Information Only00:54:26.880 - 9:23:27 AM; Representative London asked for clarification on whether the bill authorizes civilian automotive inspectors to cite violations of administrative rules. Colonel Heston Rec confirmed that while these inspectors can recognize violations, any violations of state law found are turned over to law enforcement for further action. Violations of administrative rules typically result in an administrative hearing rather than court action.
HB533: Unknown Information Only00:55:43.359 - 9:24:44 AM; The speaker asked about the sourcing, identification, certification, licensing, training, and payment of civilians performing a role related to HB533. The response indicated that these civilians are employees of the New Hampshire State Police, undergoing a hiring and training process with both the State Police and the Division of Motor Vehicles. They are also certified as motor vehicle inspectors, similar to local garages.
HB594: Representative Foot, unknown town Information Only01:03:48.680 - 9:32:49 AM; Representative Foot introduced HB594 as a courtesy, stating that the bill repeals the alternate definition of a way for the purposes of the driving after suspension or revocation statute, at the request of the Department of Justice.
HB594: Representative Representative Erica Layon Rockingham - District 13 Oppose01:04:22.160 - 9:33:23 AM; Representative Erica Leon opposed HB594, explaining that the bill seeks to repeal language passed last year intended to clarify that driving a lawnmower or similar vehicle near property edges should not result in jail time. She expressed concern that the current language could be misinterpreted to allow dangerous driving, like a demolition derby on I-93, and intends to work with the Department of Justice and Department of Transportation to clarify the language to prevent such misuse while protecting those mowing lawns.
HB594: Representative J G Information Only01:11:56.400 - 9:40:57 AM; Representative J G clarified the scope of the bill, explaining that a driver's license permits driving on public roadways. They raised a concern about whether the bill's passage would extend law enforcement's duty to private properties, specifically regarding mowers. They noted that the legal definition of a 'way' includes areas beyond the actual road, which could be considered private property. The bill aims to repeal a section that deals with operating a vehicle on a suspended license within these legally defined areas but outside the commonly understood road.
HB594: Representative P Pom Information Only01:13:34.480 - 9:42:35 AM; Representative P Pom asked if anyone had been arrested under the current law that the bill seeks to change, confirming that the bill is proactive. They shared a personal anecdote about being arrested for a DUI in their driveway, which led to further consequences for their family. They emphasized the bill's importance in preventing disproportionate punishment for minor infractions, like operating a riding lawn mower, and expressed a desire to change the law to avoid such situations in the future, acknowledging their past mistake and the need for proportionate repercussions.
HB632: Representative Gason Support01:21:46.760 - 9:50:47 AM; Representative Gason introduced House Bill 632, which aims to allow healthcare providers affiliated with the VA to certify medical accommodations for veterans in New Hampshire. The bill addresses a loophole created by a recent rule change that disqualified out-of-state licensed VA providers from certifying medical exceptions. Gason explained that the bill would expedite the resolution of this issue compared to changing the rules, and would likely prevent a lawsuit for ADA non-compliance. They had consulted with relevant officials who supported the legislative approach to fix the problem.
HB632: Representative H Information Only01:23:57.159 - 9:52:58 AM; Representative H inquired about the financial risks of not passing the bill. Representative Gason responded that there is a risk of a class action lawsuit from veterans due to ADA non-compliance if the bill does not pass. This issue became apparent when veterans with medical conditions like eye injuries or chronic migraines were denied medical exceptions such as windshield tint because their providers were not licensed in New Hampshire. The bill was expanded to cover all medical exceptions to address this broader issue.
HB632: Miller Information Only01:25:25.159 - 9:54:26 AM; Miller raised questions about the scope of the bill, specifically whether a medical provider affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) could issue certifications for non-veteran patients from a private practice in Massachusetts. The response clarified that the bill is specific to VA-affiliated providers and not intended for private healthcare providers in other states. The purpose is to streamline the process for veterans and address licensing issues that could arise in cross-border private practices.
HB632: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:26:11.280 - 9:55:12 AM; The speaker clarified that the bill targets VA-affiliated providers to simplify investigations and licensing processes. They mentioned that the bill aims to ensure veterans receive necessary medical accommodations without needing additional private care, which could be financially burdensome.
HB632: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:27:25.560 - 9:56:26 AM; The speaker responded to a question about whether the bill should define 'medical provider' more specifically, noting that the term is already defined in New Hampshire law. They suggested that referencing existing law might not be necessary but acknowledged the potential benefit for veterans if the bill passes, as it would help them access treatment more efficiently.
HB632: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:29:13.960 - 9:58:14 AM; The speaker confirmed that if a New Hampshire resident and veteran receives care from a VA facility in another state, such as Florida, and is issued a medical accommodation, it would be recognized in New Hampshire.
HB632: Representative Lon Support01:30:10.400 - 9:59:11 AM; Representative Lon supported the bill, explaining that the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR) inadvertently discriminated against VA providers. He emphasized the importance of the bill for veterans who seek care at various VA facilities, not just within New Hampshire. He also highlighted the complexity of the rule-making process and urged swift action to help veterans receive their deserved accommodations.
HB632: David Frack, representing Grafton 16, Enfield Support01:34:15.920 - 10:03:16 AM; David Frack supported the bill and suggested an amendment to include non-veteran residents who receive healthcare from neighboring states. He proposed that the New Hampshire DMV should recognize certifications from healthcare providers in states like Massachusetts or Vermont, especially for residents along state borders who might not have easy access to in-state specialists.
HB632: Warner Horn Support01:37:52.440 - 10:06:53 AM; Warner Horn expressed support for HB632, stating that everything he intended to say had already been covered by previous speakers. He did not elaborate further on the content of the bill but affirmed his support.
HB452: Tom Walsh, representing Merrimack 10, Hooksett and Dunbarton Support01:43:06.800 - 10:12:07 AM; Tom Walsh introduced HB452, which is an evolution of the previous HB1118. He explained that the new bill addresses the issuance of driver's licenses to aliens temporarily residing in New Hampshire, specifically those who have claimed asylum but have not yet had their cases adjudicated. Walsh emphasized that driving is a privilege, not a right, and expressed concern over the fairness of issuing licenses to individuals who have not yet proven their legal status. He detailed changes in the bill, including not renewing licenses issued before the change and not allowing these licenses for voting purposes. He also discussed the process of asylum claims and the difference between lawful presence and legal status, arguing that licenses should only be issued after legal status is confirmed. Walsh considered withdrawing the bill but decided to proceed after learning that a significant percentage of asylum claims might be illegitimate.
HB452: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:51:06.880 - 10:20:07 AM; The speaker asked a question about the process for handling driver's licenses for individuals who apply for asylum and are denied. They inquired if there is a mechanism in New Hampshire to revoke the license of such individuals or if the bill addresses this scenario. The response indicated that the bill prevents renewal of licenses for those denied asylum, but there is no specific mechanism mentioned for revocation upon denial of asylum. It was suggested that this might be an area to explore further, noting the complexities of the appeal process for asylum seekers.
HB452: Representative Miller Information Only01:52:01.199 - 10:21:02 AM; Representative Miller clarified the definition of 'lawfully present' in the context of asylum seekers. They explained that individuals who claim asylum and receive the necessary federal paperwork are considered lawfully present while their case is pending. They highlighted the difference between legal presence and legal status, pointing out that the term 'lawfully present' does not equate to 'legal' in the sense of permanent residency or citizenship. The discussion also touched on the implications for driver's licenses, questioning whether the legal status of an individual should affect their ability to prove identity and driving capability.
HB452: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:53:34.639 - 10:22:35 AM; The speaker discussed the historical purpose of driver's licenses, which was initially to demonstrate the ability to drive safely. They noted that licenses have since evolved into a form of general identification. They also mentioned that the legal status of an individual can change during the asylum process, affecting their ability to apply for citizenship and other legal statuses. The discussion included how the bill might address these changes, particularly with respect to license renewals.
HB452: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:55:32.000 - 10:24:33 AM; The speaker asked about the distinction between refugees and asylum seekers and whether the bill differentiates between them. It was explained that last year's version of the bill included refugees, which was a point of contention in the Senate. The current bill focuses solely on asylum seekers, as refugees apply for status in their country of origin. The speaker also criticized the previous administration's handling of immigration, suggesting that the current bill is a response to the overwhelmed system and the perceived abuse of the asylum process.
HB452: Representative Pataro Information Only01:56:59.719 - 10:26:00 AM; Representative Pataro sought clarification on the status of a previous bill (HB1118) and its relation to the current bill. They were informed that HB1118 was in interim study and that changes made to the current bill, such as removing the term 'refugee,' were intended to address previous concerns. The discussion also covered recent changes in federal policy regarding work authorizations for asylum seekers and how these changes influenced the urgency of the current bill. The speaker expressed frustration with the immigration system but felt compelled to move forward with the bill to address perceived unfairness to New Hampshire citizens.
HB452: Representative Sykes Information Only02:00:25.960 - 10:29:26 AM; Representative Sykes asked about the potential impact of the bill on asylum seekers who have been waiting for their asylum hearing for up to 10 years and are currently driving and supporting their families. The response indicated that while there is no specific data available, these individuals might be affected by the bill. The speaker acknowledged the unfortunate situation but reiterated that the current crisis is not New Hampshire's fault.
HB452: Representative G Information Only02:01:13.119 - 10:30:14 AM; Representative G clarified that the proposed bill would not alter how New Hampshire recognizes International Driving Permits (IDPs) for tourists.
HB452: Representative Walch Information Only02:01:36.880 - 10:30:37 AM; Representative Walch raised a question regarding the specifics of the driver's license marking mentioned in the bill on page two, lines 19 and 20. They inquired if there were existing regulations defining the mark or if it would be determined by the DMV director under RSA 541a.
HB452: Representative Wall Information Only02:02:23.199 - 10:31:24 AM; Representative Wall inquired about the national scope of the issue addressed by the bill, mentioning that similar legislation exists in other states, including a strict proposal in Iowa, to address the same problem.
HB452: Representative Miller Oppose02:03:08.360 - 10:32:09 AM; Representative Miller expressed concerns about the fairness of denying driver's licenses based on citizenship status, emphasizing the privilege of driving in New Hampshire and questioning the fairness of penalizing individuals for misleading asylum claims. They also asked about the process for determining the validity of such claims, highlighting the delays in immigration courts.
HB452: Representative Budathoki, Hillsborough County District 40 Oppose02:05:31.719 - 10:34:32 AM; Representative Budathoki strongly opposed HB452, sharing his personal story as a refugee who benefited from opportunities in the U.S., including the ability to drive. He argued that the bill unfairly targets legal residents, including students, workers, and families, and would hinder their ability to work, study, and contribute to society. He emphasized that denying driver's licenses does not enhance public safety but rather increases the number of unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road, calling the bill reckless and contrary to New Hampshire's values of hard work and fairness.
HB452: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:09:27.079 - 10:38:28 AM; The speaker addresses a concern about the legality of individuals who come to the state and follow the law, questioning how the proposed bill might contradict this by potentially encouraging law-breaking. They argue for the opportunity for legally present individuals, like refugees, to apply for driver's licenses and get tested to drive legally on state roads.
HB452: Representative St. Clair Information Only02:10:23.280 - 10:39:24 AM; Representative St. Clair inquires about the number of individuals who have obtained their driver's licenses but are unable to renew them due to the restrictions proposed in the bill. The speaker admits to not having current numbers but suggests reaching out to the Department of Motor Vehicles for such data.
HB452: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:11:11.320 - 10:40:12 AM; The speaker provides previous testimony from the DMV indicating approximately 15,000 non-resident aliens hold driver's licenses in the state, though the exact number affected by the bill remains unknown. They stress that the impact would be significant, affecting many people.
HB452: Jessica Peler, Asentria Community Services, Concord Oppose02:12:26.880 - 10:41:27 AM; Jessica Peler, representing Asentria Community Services in Concord, opposes HB452, arguing that it creates unnecessary barriers to employment and community integration for legally present individuals. She criticizes the bill for prohibiting driver's license issuance to asylees until they become lawful permanent residents, which could take over two years, severely limiting their ability to support themselves and contribute to the economy. Peler emphasizes the differences between refugees and asylees but notes their shared legal status and vetting process. She argues that asylees, who are legally authorized to work, should continue to be eligible for driver's licenses, as driving is essential for accessing essential services in New Hampshire. She concludes by stating that the bill penalizes individuals on a legal path to residency and citizenship, harming both the individuals and the state's workforce and economy.
HB452: Representative Crawford Information Only02:16:34.200 - 10:45:35 AM; Representative Crawford asks how a ballot clerk would know if a driver's license presented for voting purposes belongs to someone affected by the bill. The response clarifies that the license is used to determine the ability to operate a vehicle safely, not the individual's immigration status.
HB452: Representative V Information Only02:17:08.799 - 10:46:09 AM; Representative V inquires about the potential for lawsuits if the bill were to pass, referencing a similar proposed bill in Iowa. The response indicates that no state has successfully passed and adjudicated such a bill, suggesting it would likely face legal challenges due to federal rules overriding state laws.
HB452: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:17:51.398 - 10:46:52 AM; The speaker provided detailed information on the background check and vetting process for refugees and asylum seekers. They explained that this process involves submitting biometric information, which is cross-referenced with several government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the ATF. They clarified that during the asylum or refugee process, individuals must disclose any convictions or charges, even if they were not convicted. If issues arise during this process, they are addressed in an asylum hearing, where the asylum judge can decide on the individual's status. The speaker also discussed the outcomes if something 'pops up' during the asylum hearing, including the possibility of withholding of removal based on the Convention Against Torture or other reasons, but emphasized that certain offenses like terrorism or drug-related charges typically result in removal.
HB452: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:20:32.880 - 10:49:33 AM; The speaker responded to a hypothetical question about the consequences of an OUI (Operating Under the Influence) charge on someone's driver's license in the context of non-resident aliens. They explained that anyone charged with an OUI, regardless of their legal status, would still be subject to state laws regarding license suspension. They emphasized that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that the suspension of a license does not affect an individual's employment authorization document card.
HB452: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:22:20.840 - 10:51:21 AM; The speaker addressed a previous testimony's claim about the truthfulness of asylum claims. They clarified that unrepresented asylum seekers are less likely to prevail in immigration court due to a lack of familiarity with legal standards and procedures, rather than due to fraud. They emphasized that having legal representation significantly increases the likelihood of success but could not confirm the statistic about the falseness of asylum claims.
HB452: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:24:02.040 - 10:53:03 AM; The speaker clarified the difference between a non-resident alien and an illegal alien. They explained that 'alien' is a term used in federal statutes to describe non-U.S. citizens and that non-resident aliens could include anyone without U.S. citizenship. They also discussed the various categories of legal status represented by employment authorization document (EAD) cards and corrected a point about the eligibility timeline for EAD cards. They further elaborated on the services provided by their agency, which includes helping various groups such as refugees, asylum seekers, students, and those adjusting their status through marriage to U.S. citizens.
HB452: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:28:33.120 - 10:57:34 AM; The speaker clarified that all individuals represented by their agency have had contact with federal immigration authorities and are not simply people who entered the country without inspection. They explained the necessity of a legal basis for obtaining work authorization and responded to a question about a personal situation involving a family member's citizenship process, noting that under the bill, someone without a green card would not be eligible for a driver's license.
HB452: Bill Gallett, International Institute of New England Oppose02:30:05.560 - 10:59:06 AM; Bill Gallett from the International Institute of New England expressed opposition to the bill. He argued that individuals with work authorization should be able to obtain a driver's license to get to work, emphasizing the importance of this for refugees and asylum seekers. He pointed out the lengthy vetting process for refugees and the path to citizenship for asylum seekers, noting that the bill's definition of non-resident aliens could cause issues. He also highlighted the potential problem of labeling refugees and asylum seekers as temporary residents when they have the right to stay permanently. Gallett recommended a letter from the New Hampshire Immigration Rights Network for further detailed information.
HB452: Representative Au Information Only02:32:58.840 - 11:01:59 AM; Representative Au asked Bill Gallett about the process by which asylum seekers and refugees decide where to settle in the U.S. Gallett explained that the State Department and national agencies like USCRI determine the resettlement of refugees based on various factors including housing and staff capacity at local agencies. He noted that while refugees are initially assigned, they can move freely within the U.S. once legally admitted. Representative Au then inquired if HB452 could be seen as discouraging the State Department from settling refugees in New Hampshire, to which Gallett responded that the bill might disincentivize refugees from staying in the state due to potential restrictions on their ability to work.
HB452: Representative Pataro Information Only02:35:35.200 - 11:04:36 AM; Representative Pataro asked about the services provided by the International Institute of New England and their focus in New Hampshire. Bill Gallett confirmed their operations in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, primarily focusing on refugees but also offering services to other immigrants. Representative Pataro then asked about the process for refugees to obtain a New Hampshire driver's license, to which Gallett explained that refugees are eligible upon arrival but highlighted the vagueness of HB452 in defining non-resident aliens. He also noted that asylum seekers have the right to be in the U.S. and are on a path to citizenship, but the bill might prevent them from getting a driver's license until they achieve permanent resident status.
HB209: Representative Gorski Information Only04:49:13.400 - 1:18:14 PM; Representative Gorski moved to retain HB209, explaining that the prime sponsor believes more time is needed to refine the bill. He supports the bill's merits but agrees that further work is necessary.
HB209: Representative A Support04:50:00.638 - 1:19:01 PM; Representative A expressed past support for HB209, having been a co-sponsor, but agreed that additional guardrails are needed. They support giving the prime sponsor time to work on the bill.
HB439: Unnamed Representative Information Only04:52:08.520 - 1:21:09 PM; The speaker moved to retain HB439, expressing support for the bill in principle but highlighted issues with definitions and language. They requested time to refine the bill, suggesting collaboration with other committee members to enhance it.
HB452 FN: Representative Pataro Support04:54:27.520 - 1:23:28 PM; Representative Pataro moved for an 'ought to pass' on HB452, emphasizing that the bill is straightforward and deals only with asylum seekers. They clarified that the bill does not affect refugees, humanitarian parolees, or individuals on educational, tourist, work visas, etc. They argued that it's unfair to New Hampshire citizens if others are granted privileges without legal proof of status.
HB452 FN: Representative St. Clair Information Only04:56:38.280 - 1:25:39 PM; Representative St. Clair expressed concern about the impact on individuals who have followed existing rules and now might be unable to renew their licenses. They sought data on how many people would be affected by this change, indicating a need for more information before making a decision.
HB452 FN: Representative B Oppose04:58:22.320 - 1:27:23 PM; Representative B opposed the bill, stating that immigration is a federal issue and that the bill would violate several international agreements and treaties. They believed it would lead to legal challenges and thus should not be enforced.
HB452 FN: Representative Miller Oppose04:58:59.440 - 1:28:00 PM; Representative Miller disagreed with the bill being described as 'common sense, fair, and simple.' They pointed out issues with the bill's language that could prevent license renewals for non-citizens on work visas, and criticized the bill's election-related provisions as unnecessary due to existing voter registration laws. They also highlighted the potential negative impact on the workforce, particularly in underpaid yet essential jobs, and urged the committee not to move forward with the bill.
HB452 FN: Representative Smith Information Only05:02:08.160 - 1:31:09 PM; Representative Smith discussed the implications of the bill on non-resident aliens working in New Hampshire, questioning the duration of their work and the potential effects of the bill on them. He noted uncertainty about visa programs that would allow non-residents to work for extended periods, suggesting that the impact of the bill on this group might be minimal or unclear.
HB452 FN: Committee Vote Information Only05:03:42.320 - 1:32:43 PM; The committee voted on House Bill 452, resulting in a recommendation of 'ought to pass' with a vote of 9 to 7. Representatives Gorski, Clerk, Hill, Foot, Pataro, Smith, G, Hamlin, and Chairman Walsh voted yes, while Representatives Sykes, Sinclair, Fox, A, Ryan, Pondon, and Miller voted no. A minority report was mentioned, indicating potential further debate on the floor.
HB649: Representative Gon Support05:05:32.480 - 1:34:33 PM; Representative Gon moved for an 'ought to pass' on House Bill 649, arguing that the current inspection system has led to civilians being taken advantage of. He highlighted that only 11 states require safety inspections and 17 states conduct emissions testing, but New Hampshire's method is merely an engine code read, not actual emissions testing. He cited examples where minor issues like a loose gas cap can trigger an engine light without affecting emissions, suggesting the system creates a mandatory market for vendors without absolving drivers of liability.
HB649: Unnamed Representative Oppose05:07:03.638 - 1:36:04 PM; The unnamed representative expressed concerns about completely eliminating the inspection program, suggesting instead a separation of emissions testing from safety inspections. They were not ready to support the 'ought to pass' motion and preferred to retain the bill for further discussion and analysis.
HB649: Another Unnamed Representative Oppose05:07:42.958 - 1:36:43 PM; Another unnamed representative supported retaining House Bill 209, arguing for further examination due to raised questions. They emphasized the importance of the inspection program for safety and for non-mechanically inclined individuals who rely on these inspections to identify vehicle issues. They also mentioned recent legislative adjustments to address grievances with the inspection process and suggested retaining the bill to combine concepts and avoid conflicting legislation.
HB649: Representative Gorski Support05:10:38.040 - 1:39:39 PM; Representative Gorski, despite personal support for the inspection program, decided to vote 'ought to pass' due to overwhelming constituent feedback demanding its removal. He noted receiving 90-95% of constituent communications in favor of eliminating the program, prioritizing representation of his constituents' views.
HB649: Representative [Unnamed] Information Only05:11:22.638 - 1:40:23 PM; The speaker expressed concerns about the safety inspection program, suggesting it has flaws and could potentially be replaced or removed. They shared similar concerns as Representatives Sykes and Vu regarding the risk of non-compliance with the EPA, which could jeopardize significant federal funding. They suggested including a clause in the bill to align changes with EPA approval and mentioned receiving feedback via email from constituents and the bill's prime sponsor. The speaker recommended forming a subcommittee to refine the bill to meet federal obligations while benefiting constituents.
HB649: Representative Pandon Information Only05:13:32.878 - 1:42:33 PM; Representative Pandon expressed concerns about the inspection process, describing it as convoluted and in need of simplification. They mentioned issues with citizen inspectors and suggested the possibility of a second opinion system for challenged rejections. They supported retaining the bill to further understand and refine the process without completely dismantling it.
HB649: Representative Tyo Support05:14:42.718 - 1:43:43 PM; Representative Tyo mentioned talking to constituents and others knowledgeable in the subject area, noting overwhelming support for eliminating the inspection program. They believe it is time to move forward with the bill.
HB649: Representative Rips Support05:15:13.600 - 1:44:14 PM; Representative Rips echoed previous sentiments, particularly those of Vice Chairman Gorski, and expressed personal support for maintaining the inspection program due to safety concerns. However, after consulting with mechanics and constituents, they noted overwhelming support for passing the bill based on feedback from their local area.
HB649: Representative St. Clair Information Only05:15:46.080 - 1:44:47 PM; Representative St. Clair expressed concerns about the current emissions program and suggested that if the current bill passes, it might be possible to introduce another bill in the future to reinstate emissions with improvements. They mentioned that this would not be for the current year but potentially for the next year or later.
HB649: Representative Gon Oppose05:16:47.280 - 1:45:48 PM; Representative Gon argued for the elimination of the current vehicle inspection program, citing issues with the program's implementation, such as vehicles being rejected for non-safety-related issues like accessory lighting. They expressed frustration over the lack of effective guardrails and the complexity of the current rules, suggesting that starting over with a new set of guidelines or eliminating the program entirely might be necessary.
HB649: Representative Miller Information Only05:18:20.200 - 1:47:21 PM; Representative Miller responded to Representative St. Clair's suggestion about passing the current bill and fixing issues later. They expressed skepticism about the practicality of this approach, emphasizing the importance of getting it right the first time rather than hoping to fix it later.
HB649: Representative Pondon Oppose05:18:30.520 - 1:47:31 PM; Representative Pondon highlighted concerns about the impact of passing the bill on law enforcement. They argued that removing the inspection program would place the burden of vehicle safety checks on already overworked police, who would not be able to perform thorough inspections like checking brakes. They referenced a memo from a retired New Hampshire State Police Sergeant to support their argument.
HB649: Representative Gon Information Only05:19:15.600 - 1:48:16 PM; Representative Gon clarified that in states without inspection laws, police are not expected to perform duties beyond their normal scope. They cited an example from Kansas where police do not check under vehicles during routine stops, and emphasized that post-accident investigations are separate from vehicle inspections.
HB649: Representative St. Clair Support05:20:03.200 - 1:49:04 PM; Representative St. Clair argued that if the current inspection program is eliminated, service stations and dealerships would continue to check vehicles during routine services like oil changes, potentially increasing safety checks. They suggested that this would not reduce safety but might even enhance it by making more vehicle issues visible to owners.
HB649: Chairman Walsh Information Only05:20:49.638 - 1:49:50 PM; Chairman Walsh shared his frustration with defending the vehicle inspection program for 12 years and highlighted the negative impacts and resistance to change within the program. He supported the idea of getting rid of the current program, suggesting that if it were to be reinstated in the future, it should be simpler and more effective.
HB649: Representative V Information Only05:24:11.680 - 1:53:12 PM; Representative V moved to retain HB649, expressing a desire to ensure all aspects are considered before making a final decision. The motion was seconded by Representative Sykes.
HB649: Representative Pondon Support05:24:58.680 - 1:53:59 PM; Representative Pondon supported the motion to retain the bill, emphasizing the need to prevent unintended consequences. They referenced a memo from a retired New Hampshire State Police Sergeant to argue that removing the inspection program would place a safety burden on law enforcement.
HB649: Representative Pes Support05:25:38.958 - 1:54:39 PM; Representative Pes urged the committee to support the motion to retain the bill, suggesting it would allow for a more thorough examination of the issues raised. They proposed the possibility of melding two different bills into a better solution.
HB649: Representative Gon Oppose05:26:24.480 - 1:55:25 PM; Representative Gon opposed the motion to retain, arguing that the public's desire to eliminate the program deserved a floor fight. They expressed skepticism about the benefits of retaining two bills on the same subject and suggested it might be an attempt to quietly kill the bill.
HB649: Chairman Walsh Information Only05:27:57.520 - 1:56:58 PM; Chairman Walsh clarified the voting process and the consequences of the committee's decisions. After the motion to retain failed, the committee moved to vote on a motion to find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL), which also failed, resulting in the bill going to the floor without a recommendation.
HB715: Representative Hamler Oppose05:34:22.440 - 2:03:23 PM; Representative Hamler moved to recommend the bill as inexpedient to legislate (ITL). He expressed concerns about the enforcement of the bill, particularly on rail trails and off-roading areas, and the potential need for police officers to monitor these locations. He also highlighted the inconsistency in licensing requirements for operating personal electric vehicles, noting that the bill recommended licenses for individuals 16 and older but not for those aged 15.
HB715: Representative B Oppose05:35:10.240 - 2:04:11 PM; Representative B agreed with the motion to recommend ITL, stating that the bill in its current form was unworkable. He raised concerns about the lack of a clear definition for personal electric vehicles and the potential for individuals with suspended licenses due to DUI to use these vehicles as a loophole. He suggested the need for a better definition and questioned the approach if the bill were to be recommended as ITL.
HB715: Chairman Walsh Information Only05:36:42.360 - 2:05:43 PM; Chairman Walsh discussed the implications of recommending the bill as ITL, noting that it would be done for the term. He suggested the possibility of using the bill as a template for a study committee and discussed the potential for a non-germane bill that could define electric vehicles differently. He also mentioned the need for the speaker's approval on any new bill.
HB715: Unnamed Representative Information Only05:38:13.080 - 2:07:14 PM; An unnamed representative questioned why the changes proposed in the bill were not included in the existing Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device (EPAM) chapter, which covers scooters and Segways. They suggested that updating the EPAM statute might be a more suitable approach and could potentially be presented to the speaker as a different enough bill to be considered.
HB305: Representative Gon Oppose05:51:54.360 - 2:20:55 PM; Representative Gon moved to recommend the bill as inexpedient to legislate (ITL). He cited concerns about the use of biometric technology to identify drivers, which he believed would infringe on privacy. He also mentioned the potential cost to townships and the exclusion of third-party vendors, which could increase privacy concerns and the overall expense of the program.
HB390: Representative Hamlin Support05:54:28.680 - 2:23:29 PM; Representative Hamlin moved that the bill ought to pass. He explained that retired fire apparatus, typically over 20 years old, could still be in good condition and have value as collectibles. He supported the bill as it would allow these vehicles to be used in parades and shows, increasing interest in purchasing them from towns and cities, thus providing a good cause for their retirement.
HB390: Representative B Support05:56:04.520 - 2:25:05 PM; Representative B expressed support for the bill, stating that old fire trucks are a favorite in parades and that the bill would incentivize their preservation. He believed this would contribute positively to the community's enjoyment of such events.
HB390: Representative SES Support05:56:50.160 - 2:25:51 PM; Representative SES supported the bill, noting that it would create a more vibrant marketplace for used fire apparatus. This, he argued, would be beneficial for taxpayers, as it would increase the value of retired fire trucks, making it easier for towns to dispose of them.
HB419: Representative Pataro Oppose05:58:56.558 - 2:27:57 PM; Representative Pataro moved to recommend the bill as inexpedient to legislate (ITL). He argued that the bill was unnecessary and did not address a specific issue effectively.
HB419: Representative Pondon Oppose05:59:32.520 - 2:28:33 PM; Representative Pondon expressed opposition to the motion of inexpedient to legislate (ITL) on HB419. They highlighted the bill's focus on vehicle safety during inclement weather, citing statistics from seven states between 1998 and 2007 where similar legislation led to a significant decrease in multi-vehicle accidents during the daytime. They emphasized that the bill targets older vehicles since newer models automatically turn on headlights. They concluded by stating their inability to support the ITL motion due to the bill's safety intentions.
HB419: Representative Gon Information Only06:00:30.840 - 2:29:31 PM; Representative Gon raised concerns about the bill not addressing the importance of tail lights when windshield wipers are in use during inclement weather. They pointed out the lack of rear and side visibility without tail lights and criticized the bill's wording, which might lead to misinterpretation. They suggested that the conditions for using windshield wipers were not clearly defined in relation to inclement weather.
HB419: Representative St. Clair Information Only06:01:12.040 - 2:30:13 PM; Representative St. Clair questioned whether there is a law mandating the use of windshield wipers during rain, mentioning the use of Rain-X as a potential reason for not using wipers. They suggested this as a relevant point in the discussion of the bill.
HB419: Representative A Support06:01:59.160 - 2:31:00 PM; Representative A supported the bill, appreciating the clear definition it provides by linking the use of lights to the activation of windshield wipers, rather than visibility distance, which can be hard to judge. They argued that most drivers use wipers in inclement weather, making this a practical standard.
HB419: Representative Hamlin Information Only06:02:45.160 - 2:31:46 PM; Representative Hamlin noted that the bill does not address the use of the delay function on windshield wipers, which might be relevant in lighter rain conditions. They suggested this as an area of improvement in the bill.
HB419: Chairman Walsh Oppose06:03:31.400 - 2:32:32 PM; Chairman Walsh expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that it adds another potential violation for drivers and another task for police. They suggested that safety could be improved through education and electronic billboards on highways rather than legislation. They concluded by supporting the ITL motion.

Walsh, Thomas(Chairman)(R)[B-]2025	Crawford, Karel(Clerk)(R)[C+]2025	Gorski, Ted(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Sykes, George(D)[F]2025	Hill, Gregory(R)[A-]2025	Plamondon, Marc(D)[F]2025
Veilleux, Daniel(D)[F]2025	Pitaro, Matthew(R)[A-]2025	Coker, Matthew(R)[C]2025
St. Clair, Charlie(D)[D-]2025	Fox, Dru(D)[F]2025	Foote, Charles(R)[B]2025
Johnson, Erik(D)[F]2025	Miller, Seth(D)[F]2025	Hamblen, Joseph(R)[B]2025
Giasson, Henry(R)[A+]2025