Warning: Bill numbers and names are based on text-to-speech transcript which may have errors due to transcription issues or ad hoc/incomplete language use by committee.
directing the department of health and human services to provide notice of medical and religious exemptions from immunization requirements and relative to the form of such exemption.
(New Title) relative to disbursement of funds by the New Hampshire vaccine association and establishing a committee to study the efficacy of the New Hampshire vaccine association.
limiting times vaccine clinics may operate at schools and requiring parents or legal guardians to be present with their child during the administration of vaccinations at such a clinic.
repealing the refugee resettlement program in the department of health and human services and prohibiting expenditure of state funds on refugee resettlement.
Representative Potenza introduced HB 1719, which aligns New Hampshire's policy with the updated ACIP recommendations from December 2025 to end the universal birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine for infants born to hepatitis B-negative mothers, shifting to individualized risk-based decision-making. She explained that hepatitis B is primarily transmitted through blood exposure, sexual contact, needle use, or from infected mothers at birth, and all pregnant women in New Hampshire are screened. For low-risk infants, universal vaccination is not medically necessary. The bill does not ban the vaccine but preserves parental choice and informed consent. She shared personal experience of her daughter's vaccine injury from the hepatitis B shot and highlighted historical context, including a 2018 DHHS letter stating no mandate until age 3, and criticized recent changes in DHHS guidance linking to the American Academy of Pediatrics instead of CDC. She provided handouts with past testimony showing lack of evidence from opponents on transmission risks and prevalence data.
HB1719
Oppose00:21:58.138 - 1:17:19 PM
Representative Weber opposed HB 1719, recalling the era before vaccines and the dangers they prevented. She argued that not all pregnant women receive adequate prenatal care, leaving some infants unprotected, and transmission can occur through cuts, scratches, bites, or caregivers with open wounds. Hepatitis B infection is lifelong, life-changing, and significantly shortens life. She referenced a 99% drop in infant infections due to vaccination and over a billion safe doses administered since 1991, urging the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL).
HB1719
Support00:23:14.838 - 1:18:35 PM
Megan Hetty supported HB 1719, describing it as simply removing a mandate. Drawing from her experience on House Health and Human Services and Elder Affairs Committee and the Special Committee on COVID Response Efficacy, she stated there is no benefit to mandating the hepatitis B vaccine for children's health. She mentioned research papers showing that vaccinated children, on average, have worse outcomes.
HB1719
Support00:24:41.598 - 1:20:02 PM
The speaker discusses research showing unvaccinated children have better health outcomes and fewer chronic diseases, noting that opponents reject this data. They argue that while unvaccinated children may appear healthier, causation cannot be proven, and some studies show no correlation between vaccination and health outcomes. The speaker emphasizes the lack of positive proof that vaccines improve health outcomes, particularly for hepatitis B, which can be life-shortening but so can vaccine side effects. They conclude they cannot support the mandate for their children or constituents.
HB1719
Support00:26:03.398 - 1:21:24 PM
With 43 years in pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device industries, including work on vaccines and with Dr. Jonas Salk, the speaker outlines credentials including degrees in chemical engineering and pharmaceutical quality. He clarifies this is not an anti-vax bill but advocates for adequate safety studies with statistical power, placebo controls, and long-term monitoring. He supports informed consent and shared decision-making. He criticizes hep B vaccine studies as underpowered (500 and 150 patients), lacking placebo controls, and with only 4-5 day follow-ups, missing long-term impacts. During Q&A, he explains phases of FDA studies, notes these vaccines bypassed full phases, and discusses post-approval monitoring like VAERS as inadequate for causal determination. He references a 2012 IOM meta-analysis finding limited causal links, mainly yeast allergies.
HB1719
Oppose00:37:00.994 - 1:32:21 PM
Hepatitis B is highly infectious, spread through blood and bodily fluids, including in schools via scratches or bites, and survives on surfaces for days. Infection leads to liver inflammation, cirrhosis, failure, cancer, and death; 90% of infected infants and 30% of young children develop chronic infection, with 25% dying prematurely. Up to 50% of US cases are unaware carriers who can spread it unknowingly, including in childcare. The bill could increase outbreaks costing $100,000-$350,000 each and burden healthcare/Medicaid with lifelong antiviral treatments and complications. Parents retain choices via exemptions and flexible schedules, but universal vaccination since 1991 reduced child infections dramatically from 16,000 to 1 annually under 15. Prior risk-based approach led to higher incidence; removing mandates risks resurgence and financial strain. During Q&A, they clarify exemptions, schedules, historical outbreaks, and costs.
HB1719
Oppose00:51:00.000 - 1:46:21 PM
As a pediatrician practicing 40 years in Concord, the speaker provides historical context: in 1982, ~20,000 US child hep B cases (~1,000 in NH); by 1992, still ~18,000 US (~900 NH). Universal newborn vaccination in 1991 reduced US cases to 14 by 2009, a 99% drop. Rising vaccine skepticism increased cases to ~1,200 nationally by 2017. Chronic infection costs $1,000-$3,000/month in meds lifelong, plus hospitalizations ($3,000-$5,000/night in PICU) for complications like liver failure/cancer, totaling hundreds of thousands per patient. Prevention is cheap: $40/dose, $120-$400/series. Limiting access is medically and fiscally irresponsible; parents retain rights via exemptions.
HB1719
Oppose00:54:23.225 - 1:49:44 PM
Dr. Lim, a pediatric endocrinologist and pediatrician practicing at Dartmouth, spoke as a private citizen in opposition to HB 1719. She cares for immunocompromised children with chronic conditions like diabetes and hormone disorders who face barriers to care such as low income, transportation, and insurance gaps. She sees adolescents needing hepatitis B vaccination for school, work, or military but facing delays due to access issues. Routine childhood immunizations have reduced hepatitis B infections in children by over 95%, protecting against lifelong diseases like cirrhosis and liver cancer. Removing the requirement will increase missed vaccinations and burden adolescents. A New Hampshire Journal poll showed 91% support easy access to childhood vaccines. She urged voting ITL on HB 1719.
HB1719
Oppose00:57:22.120 - 1:52:43 PM
Dr. Kim, immediate past president of the New Hampshire AAP and a pediatric oncologist, opposed HB 1719. The hepatitis B vaccine has reduced child infections from 16,000 to under 100 annually, with only one perinatal case last year. It is an anti-cancer vaccine as hepatitis B causes liver cancer. She has cared for children with liver cancers, a devastating experience. Eliminating even one case through safe, effective immunization is crucial, especially at birth to protect against undetected maternal infections.
HB1719
Oppose01:00:26.284 - 1:55:47 PM
Dr. Olive, a board-certified family physician practicing in New Hampshire for six years, spoke for himself and the New Hampshire Medical Society in opposition to HB 1719. He emphasized prevention, including vaccinations, as key to health impacts. Hepatitis B remains a U.S. public health issue with about 1,000 preventable infant cases yearly. Universal vaccination protects against unknown maternal infections or prenatal care gaps, reducing chronic infections, fatal outcomes, and liver cancer. Vaccines are discussed with risks and benefits like any intervention; hepatitis B vaccine is safe with mild side effects. Requiring it supports health goals of fewer infections, cancers, and deaths.
HB1719
Oppose01:05:03.964 - 2:00:24 PM
Dr. Braley, a board-certified family physician representing Elliott Health System, opposed HB 1719. In primary care, prevention is key, and the hepatitis B vaccine prevents lifelong liver disease and cancer. Infants are at highest risk, with up to 90% developing chronic infection if exposed at birth or early. Universal birth dose protects during vulnerable periods despite prenatal screening. Removing the requirement signals it's optional, affecting parental decisions, especially with variable uptake outside hospitals. Major organizations support childhood vaccination; HB 1719 conflicts with evidence-based care. The vaccine is safe, with mild side effects in one in a million cases, monitored extensively. It risks broader rollback of immunization policies.
HB1719
Oppose01:08:08.262 - 2:03:29 PM
Dr. Arsenault, a primary care pediatrician in Concord and president of the NH AAP, urged opposition to HB 1719. Pre-vaccine, there were about 10,000 annual perinatal cases; now single digits due to birth dose. Targeted testing failed. School requirements signal important vaccines to parents, making compliance the path of least resistance for protection. Families view the list as must-haves. Over a billion doses administered safely, monitored by VAERS; she reported one possible event. Removing it implies it's unimportant, affecting uptake.
HB1719
Oppose01:13:06.504 - 2:08:27 PM
Kate Frey, Vice President of Advocacy at New Futures, and Trina Engelfinger, Early Care and Education Policy Director, opposed HB 1719 from public health and child care perspectives. Removing hepatitis B creates a 'death by 1,000 cuts' approach risking other vaccines. It could disqualify NH from $40 million in federal child care development funds, as providers must follow state public health recommendations. A NH Journal poll showed 91% support for childhood vaccines, with 58% opposing elimination of hepatitis B requirements and only 23% supporting.
HB1719
Information Only01:16:00.000 - 2:11:21 PM
Melissa Blazek began her testimony representing an unspecified group, but the transcript cuts off before further details.
HB1719
Support01:17:35.433 - 2:12:56 PM
The speaker clarifies that HB 1719 aims to end the mandate for the hepatitis B vaccine for school and daycare attendance, not for birth. Vaccines remain available and recommended by doctors, but the bill removes government enforcement. Emphasizes that persuasion, not force, should guide vaccination decisions.
HB1719
Oppose01:19:25.210 - 2:14:46 PM
Hepatitis B is a silent infection often undiagnosed for years. Routine vaccination reduced infections in infants and children by 99%, from 16,000 cases annually in the early 1990s to under 20 recently. Removing the requirement risks undetected transmission, especially in households with unvaccinated adults, potentially reversing public health gains. A recent poll shows only 22.7% of New Hampshire residents support elimination. Urges voting inexpedient to legislate.
HB1719
Support01:20:22.830 - 2:15:43 PM
As a physician who has testified before congressional and state committees and advised on vaccines, Nass focuses on the birth dose of hepatitis B. Mothers may not be in a position to consent shortly after birth. Only 25% of U.S. babies receive the birth dose, yet perinatal cases are low at 20 nationwide. Vaccine injuries in newborns are hard to detect. References France's program halt due to neurologic cases. Stresses screening mothers and using HBIG for protection, not universal vaccination, as one dose offers only 25% efficacy.
HB1719
Support01:25:22.274 - 2:20:43 PM
Potenza shares her personal experience as a victim of the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth. She suffered from anxiety, eating issues, vomiting, and extreme pain from infancy, leading to extensive medical interventions including endoscopies and therapies. Costs exceeded $200,000 out-of-pocket by age 15, and over $3 million in insurance costs in the last 3.5 years for rumination syndrome, requiring a GJ tube for feeding. She's on disability and Medicare. Argues that vaccine injury costs must be considered alongside infection risks.
HB1719
Support01:28:31.260 - 2:23:52 PM
Trexler supports HB 1719, questioning infection rates in children, noting zero official cases before 1991. Challenges outbreak cost estimates as invented, since 50% of infections are asymptomatic. Vaccine immunity wanes within nine years, before sexual activity risks, leaving only risks. Questions why vaccine profiteers oppose the bill and recalls no school outbreaks pre-1991. Shares personal story of her daughter's unauthorized vaccination at birth leading to liver impairment. Emphasizes considering vaccine injury costs and that 'safe and effective' ignores the harmed.
HB1719
Information Only01:30:58.181 - 2:26:19 PM
York addresses vaccine safety, noting no childhood vaccine, including hepatitis B, has undergone gold-standard saline placebo testing. Acknowledges the ethical dilemma of such testing today but highlights the lack of robust safety data.
HB1719
Oppose01:32:32.739 - 2:27:53 PM
The speaker argues that the default assumption of vaccine safety without proper testing data is unacceptable, especially for children. They emphasize that the onus is on proving safety and criticize repeated claims of 'safe and effective' as propaganda. They note the absence of a vaccine safety research association and inadequate studies on the hepatitis B vaccine, as mentioned by Representative Warey. They dismiss VAERS reporting as unreliable due to massive underreporting and voluntary nature. The speaker discusses medical indications, questioning the necessity of administering the hepatitis B vaccine, which contains mercury, to newborns in low-prevalence areas like New Hampshire with negative maternal status and safe households, noting it exceeds safe mercury levels by 75 times.
HB1584
Support01:36:04.300 - 2:31:25 PM
As the prime sponsor, Representative Potenza introduces HB 1584, clarifying that it does not alter immunization requirements or discourage vaccination but ensures truthful disclosure of existing medical and religious exemptions under New Hampshire law. The bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to prominently disclose these exemptions in vaccination promotions, not buried in fine print. It also clarifies that parents need not use a state-created form for religious exemptions; any signed written statement suffices. She notes the bill was amended in the House to remove penalties and addresses misconceptions about religious exemption forms, which are not used in outbreaks but kept in files. She provides an example of DHHS material at a pediatrician's office that omits mention of exemptions, calling it propaganda, and urges prominent disclosure to build trust and respect parental rights. In response to questions, she confirms the bill targets mandated vaccines only, not elective ones like shingles, and discusses issues with the current form's invasiveness and the need to revert to simpler statements used for decades.
HB1584
Oppose01:44:42.160 - 2:40:03 PM
Representative Lamontagne opposes HB 1584, arguing it forces DHHS to include prominent statements about exemptions in all vaccine-related communications, effectively undermining science-based public health guidelines. She compares it to requiring disclaimers on handwashing or helmet safety messages, noting people already have choices but the bill would disavow professional positions, leading to declining vaccination rates and resurgence of controlled diseases. She views it as a waste of time and resources for reprinting materials.
HB1584
Oppose01:48:08.727 - 2:43:29 PM
Representative Weber echoes concerns about HB 1584, highlighting the 30-day compliance window as a waste of scarce resources for updating all materials. She defends the existing religious exemption form as non-intrusive, containing only identifying information kept at schools, with vaccination details optional. She criticizes the remaining penalty section as overkill, including misdemeanor or felony charges for typographical errors, noting it bypassed Criminal Justice Committee review and imposes a $45,000 compliance cost plus disciplinary actions.
HB1584
Oppose01:50:28.907 - 2:45:49 PM
Megan Hetty and Ian Watt oppose HB 1584. Section 1 would mandate exemption statements in all immunization communications, regardless of type, audience, or topic, potentially confusing non-school-related messages like those on respiratory viruses. Exemption info is already available on DHHS, education, and childcare websites. Section 2 would allow any written statement for religious exemptions, replacing the standard DHHS form approved by JLCAR in 2023, which aids uniform administration and informs families during outbreaks; the form stays at schools, with no data to DHHS. A similar bill (HB 358) was vetoed and sustained as unnecessary. Section 3's penalties are unclear on enforcement, increasing legal costs. They estimate a $43,000 part-time position need and request a nine-month delayed effective date. In questions, they explain the form's creation per statute, its utility based on school input, optional details, and easy website access to exemption info.
HB1584
Oppose02:00:09.112 - 2:55:30 PM
Dr. Julie Kim opposes HB 1584, stating the current system works well from her 20+ years experience. As a pediatric oncologist, her immunocompromised patients require medical exemptions, and families are already aware via the DHHS website. The one-page religious exemption form is simple, requires no notarization, and is easily completed. Changes are unnecessary.
HB1584
Oppose02:01:02.072 - 2:56:23 PM
Dr. Arsenault urges opposition to HB 1584, emphasizing the current process works and is easily accessible; a Google search for avoiding vaccinations quickly finds the form. The bill would cost DHHS unnecessarily, create confusion, and hinder important public health messaging for families.
HB1584
Oppose02:02:23.273 - 2:57:44 PM
Richard Gullage strongly opposes HB 1584, clarifying it is a state workforce governance bill, not vaccine policy, and deeply flawed. Section 3 requires that noncompliant state employees face consequences.
HB1584
Oppose02:03:43.559 - 2:59:04 PM
The speaker opposes HB 1584, arguing that it interferes with existing statutes and regulations on state employee accountability, particularly RSA 21-I, which empowers the director of personnel to adopt and interpret rules on discipline. The bill would undermine due process, progressive discipline, and appeal procedures by imposing statutory mandates on employee discipline outside the established framework, potentially limiting the Personnel Appeals Board's authority and creating confusion.
HB1584
Oppose02:07:01.217 - 3:02:22 PM
Katie Frye opposes HB 1584, stating it weakens immunization requirements. High vaccination rates create community immunity, protect children, reduce parental work absences, and benefit the economy. Recent dips in vaccination rates are concerning, and this bill could lead to more exemptions. Vaccines have eliminated many diseases, and maintaining herd immunity protects vulnerable populations. She submitted written testimony and that of an absent advocate.
HB1584
Support02:08:54.227 - 3:04:15 PM
Larissa Trexler supports HB 1584 as a mother, nurse, and advocate. She criticizes the current religious exemption process, noting that DHHS introduced a new form requiring annual updates, grade level specificity, and vaccination details, which complicates a simple statutory statement under RSA 141-C:20-c. This sets up expiration and unnecessary hoops, violating religious rights. The form's checkboxes do not accurately reflect vaccination status; records must be checked directly. Many parents are unaware of exemptions, so clearer notice is needed.
HB1584
Oppose02:11:19.527 - 3:06:40 PM
Ali Favor opposes HB 1584 on behalf of New Hampshire Families for Vaccines. The bill would eliminate the standardized religious exemption form, which ensures clarity, consistency, and accountability for tracking exemptions and responding to outbreaks. Without it, administrative burdens increase, records become inconsistent, and schools struggle with uniform policies. The form protects families and communities by documenting informed exemptions and aiding public health practices. She urges voting inexpedient to legislate.
HB1584
Oppose02:13:19.907 - 3:08:40 PM
Pam DiNapoli, representing the School Nurses Association, opposes HB 1584 as unnecessary, focusing on Section 2 regarding the exemption form. DHHS created the form, approved for state use, which is simple, available online, and no longer requires notarization. Parents rarely complete checkbox details, so nurses verify independently and accept forms sincerely regardless of religious tradition. The form aids organization, record-keeping, and exclusion during outbreaks, kept confidential within schools. Current processes work without hardship, and the bill's purpose is unclear.
HB524
Support02:16:19.887 - 3:11:40 PM
Bob Wary, standing in for prime sponsor Representative Michael Granger, supports HB 524FN. The bill addresses deposit and disbursement of funds for the New Hampshire Vaccine Association (NHVA) for tighter controls and transparency, especially leftover funds. It establishes a study committee to review NHVA's efficacy, funding sources, justification, beneficiary demographics, impacts on insurance and vaccine costs, compliance with RSAs, and potential enabling legislation. It has no impact on mandatory childhood immunizations.
HB524
Oppose02:19:17.324 - 3:14:38 PM
Representative Lucy Webber opposes HB 524FN, praising the NHVA as an efficient, decades-old program that benefits providers, insurers, Medicaid, and families by enabling bulk vaccine purchases at reduced costs, providing free vaccines to parents, and simplifying billing. No study is needed as it works well. Efforts to extend to adults failed due to differing administration models. The bill, evolved from a repeal attempt, contributes to efforts reducing vaccine accessibility, though individual choices are respected.
HB524
Information Only02:24:37.397 - 3:19:58 PM
Megan Hetty, joined by Ian Watt, provides background on HB 524FN. The department opposed the original bill repealing the NH Vaccine Association but supports the clarifying amendment in Section 1. Section 3 establishes a study committee on efficacy. The program saves 30% on immunizations for privately insured children, has less than 1% administrative costs borne by commercial payers, ensuring free access. Ian Watt notes the public-private partnership with over 80 insurers, 220 practices, and state departments, serving thousands annually with mandatory annual reports for transparency to the governor, legislature, and insurance department.
HB524
Oppose02:27:17.304 - 3:22:38 PM
Dr. Edwards emphasizes the NHVA's total transparency via its website, questioning the need for a study committee as all information is readily available. She notes that financial reporting by Helms and Company costs nothing extra, as interest from funds covers it. The program is a win-win with discounts from CDC, funded by Medicaid and insurers, and she serves as physician liaison.
HB524
Oppose02:28:32.370 - 3:23:53 PM
Dr. Kim praises the NHVA and urges opposition to the unnecessary study. For cancer patients post-treatment needing revaccination, the program provides free vaccines, preventing costs of $40-$400 per vaccine plus $100 administration fees, potentially $2,000-$3,000 total. The program's success is evident, making a study a waste of resources.
HB524
Oppose02:30:42.870 - 3:26:03 PM
Kate agrees with prior testimony, supporting Section 1 on reporting but opposing the study committee on efficacy. The 2025 audit showed less than 1% administrative expenses on a $24 million program for the third year. The program enables free vaccines for all children and was the first in the nation, modeled by other states, proving its effectiveness.
HB524
Support02:31:58.916 - 3:27:19 PM
Representative Azav highlights the NHVA's taxing authority and exemptions from transparency laws like 91A, operating in a 'shadow.' The original bill sought full repeal due to lack of transparency in medical pricing, where listed prices exclude discounts. Compares to 340B program offering deeper discounts; some providers benefit without NHVA. Many states operate without such monopolies, necessitating a study for actual numbers.
HB524
Oppose02:34:34.315 - 3:29:55 PM
Dr. Arsenault opposes HB 524FN, recalling last year's opposition from 3,000 healthcare professionals against repealing the NHVA. For her small practice, vaccines would cost $26,000 monthly without it, posing financial challenges. If a committee forms, it should include at least half healthcare providers for balanced input.
HB1449
Support02:36:40.472 - 3:32:01 PM
As sponsor and former pharmacist, Rep. McGrath shares her background, including job loss for refusing experimental COVID vaccines for children. The bill requires parent/guardian presence for school immunizations, mirroring pharmacy and doctor practices. She discusses vaccine side effects like myocarditis, especially in young males, and two documented unauthorized school vaccinations despite parental refusal. Emphasizes safety over convenience, noting no liability for incidents, and suggests family events at clinics. Most vaccinations occur at primary care or pharmacies.
HB1449
Oppose02:49:18.366 - 3:44:39 PM
Rep. Lamontagne argues HB 1449 limits vaccination access by prohibiting school clinics during hours and requiring parental presence, despite existing opt-in consents. It inconveniences rural parents, potentially causing missed work for drives to providers. Acknowledges unauthorized vaccinations are wrong but opposes eliminating convenient programs. School clinics are safe environments; compares to sports injuries without parental presence. Voluntary clinics prevent outbreaks, avoiding longer school absences; bill imposes minority views on majority.
HB1449
Information Only02:51:36.376 - 3:46:57 PM
Megan Hetty, Chief of the Bureau of Infectious Disease Control, and Ian Watt, Director of the Division of Public Health, provide information and express concerns about HB 1449. They state that the bill would prevent the department, local communities, and healthcare partners from using school immunization clinics to respond to outbreaks or pandemics of vaccine-preventable diseases. School-based clinics increase access for children and staff lacking primary care, address barriers like transportation and cost, and are voluntary with informed consent. The bill would create challenges in identifying alternative access points, burden the healthcare system, and remove community control over public health services. They clarify that the department is voicing concerns but not taking a formal opposed position, as the bill amends an education statute.
HB1449
Oppose03:01:00.000 - 3:56:21 PM
Patricia Edwards opposes HB 1449 because it would impose undue stress on parents by requiring immunizations outside school programs. School vaccine clinics, scheduled during the school day, make it easier for working parents to ensure timely vaccinations without additional burdens like transportation or time off work. She notes that many families rely on these services and that shifting clinics outside school hours creates barriers. Edwards shares experiences with children who miss flu vaccines due to lack of school clinics and end up sick. The existing system with parental permission forms has worked for decades, is voluntary, and helps alleviate demand on pediatric practices. The bill adds unnecessary stress to families and medical practices.
HB1449
Oppose03:03:54.047 - 3:59:15 PM
Pam DiNapoli opposes HB 1449 as it limits school-based vaccine clinics, viewing it as a continuation of efforts like SB 343 to restrict school-based health services. School-based services are evidence-based, increase access to preventive care, and were crucial during the COVID pandemic for quick vaccinations. They remain important for seasonal flu and outbreaks, as schools are central to students' lives and help link families to care. This aligns with initiatives like Governor Ayotte's Go North to improve accessibility in rural areas. Clinics are safe, with debriefs after errors, and professionals can be reported to licensing boards. Consent forms are used for physicals and procedures, and while flu clinics are primary, others like COVID occurred but are not widespread now.
HB1449
Oppose03:07:20.976 - 4:02:41 PM
Kate Fry opposes HB 1449, which adds regulations and prohibits vaccine clinics during school hours. Permanently banning school-based clinics is short-sighted for future emergencies, as seen in the 2022 triple-demic where clinics vaccinated over 4,000 individuals through partnerships with public health networks and Medical Reserve Corps. Prohibiting them could cost $100,000 to $350,000 to address outbreaks. A recent poll in the New Hampshire Journal showed 80% concern that restrictions could lead to declining vaccination rates and outbreaks. She urges the committee to oppose the bill.
HB1449
Oppose03:09:30.000 - 4:04:51 PM
Allie Fava opposes HB 1449 on behalf of New Hampshire Families for Vaccines, as school-based clinics ensure timely and equitable access to immunizations by removing barriers like transportation, scheduling, and provider access, especially for working and rural families. Restricting times or requiring parental presence would hinder access, potentially reducing rates and leading to costly outbreaks. Public health works best by meeting people where they are, so she urges voting inexpedient to legislate.
HB1449
Oppose03:10:50.000 - 4:06:11 PM
Rebecca Lozman-Oxman opposes HB 1449, drawing from her experience in school-based health centers. Limiting school vaccine access creates barriers, disproportionately affecting vulnerable and rural communities, and undermines public health while conflicting with New Hampshire's values of freedom and practical solutions. Clinics during school hours prevent work absences and transportation issues, ensuring equal access regardless of socioeconomic status. They require explicit parental consent, safeguarding rights. As a practitioner, mother, and resident, she urges opposition to support expanded access policies.
HB1449
Oppose03:14:00.675 - 4:09:21 PM
Sarah Schlieff opposes HB 1449 because it eliminates low-barrier flu vaccination programs for children. School-day clinics minimize class time lost and work absences for parents. In fall 2025, her program vaccinated 570 students in Sullivan County, with similar programs providing nearly 75,000 flu shots since 2013. Students are vaccinated in small groups, observed for 15 minutes post-vaccination, and returned to class. Participation is opt-in for schools and families, with consent forms verified by three individuals; parents may attend but most do not. Clinics are minimally disruptive and primarily for annual flu, though others like COVID have occurred.
HB1449
Support03:17:00.000 - 4:12:21 PM
Gary York supports HB 1449. He acknowledges discussions on convenience and timeliness for outbreaks but notes that the focus has been on flu clinics. He questions the effectiveness of the flu vaccine, stating it is ineffective at preventing the flu and may increase the likelihood of getting it if vaccinated.
HB1449
Support03:17:17.866 - 4:12:38 PM
Dr. York discusses a study from the Cleveland Clinic on flu vaccines and thanks Representative McGrath for the bill protecting parents' rights in medical decisions for their children. He argues that education should be the focus in schools, especially given declining test scores post-pandemic lockdowns. He criticizes past medical incidents at schools, emphasizing the need for parental presence during vaccinations or procedures, and supports the bill to enshrine these rights.
HB1449
Support03:18:37.106 - 4:13:58 PM
Representative Polozov supports the bill, noting declining proficiency scores in schools and the need to limit time spent on questionable practices like flu clinics. He references that school-age children were not vulnerable to COVID and questions the reliability and safety research of annual flu vaccines, arguing they are not science-based and distract from core subjects like math and reading.
HB1706
Support03:23:24.557 - 4:18:45 PM
As an immigrant himself, Representative Polozov supports the bill, prioritizing constituents like homeless veterans over housing immigrants. He shares an example of government costs for housing a Russian family in hotels and argues that resources should focus on New Hampshire residents, including working people struggling with housing affordability.
HB1706
Oppose03:25:03.428 - 4:20:24 PM
Representing St. Andrews Episcopal Church, Nancy Rollins opposes HB 1706, highlighting the church's support for Overcomers Refugee Services, which provides essential guidance, language support, job training, and necessities to refugees. She notes that federal funds augment modest budgets for these programs and questions turning away aid for legal refugees. As a former DHHS associate commissioner and lifelong New Hampshire resident, she calls the bill mean-spirited and urges its defeat to uphold New Hampshire values.
HB1706
Oppose03:27:48.775 - 4:23:09 PM
Amy Moore, Vice President of External Relations at Essentia Care Alliance, opposes the bill, correcting misinformation from the sponsor. She explains that refugee resettlement is a federal program with rigorous vetting over years, and refugees contribute more in taxes than they receive. She emphasizes the need for refugee labor in healthcare and other sectors amid workforce shortages, beyond humanitarian concerns, and invites questions about the program.
HB1706
Oppose03:30:57.879 - 4:26:18 PM
Inosanda Gijimana shares her personal story of immigrating from a Congolese refugee camp in Rwanda after 18 years, undergoing a nearly three-year vetting process. Supported by the International Institute of New England (IINE), she adapted, earned a high school diploma and bachelor's degree from UNH, and now works for IINE while supporting her family. She highlights refugees' hard work, contributions to the economy through jobs and training, and her brother's service in the Marines. She urges opposition to the bill, arguing it would harm refugees and New Hampshire's economy.
HB1706
Oppose03:35:37.197 - 4:30:58 PM
Zazie Sawyer testified in opposition to HB 1706, explaining the refugee resettlement process. Refugees are initially supported through a 90-day federal program providing basic stabilization services like housing at market rates. After that, DHHS oversees support until citizenship eligibility at five years. The Institute's contract with DHHS focuses on rapid economic self-sufficiency, including job placement, financial literacy, tax education, childcare access, and targeted training like ESOL for healthcare and LNA programs. DHHS ensures oversight through annual audits, monthly check-ins, and policy guidance, backed by federal oversight for transparency and efficiency. The bill would remove this effective system without affecting refugee arrival mechanisms, harming long-term workforce benefits for New Hampshire.
HB1706
Oppose03:37:55.805 - 4:33:16 PM
Bill Gillett, involved with the Institute since 2008 as a board member and now director for public policy and advocacy, addressed concerns raised previously. He assured that salaries at the Institute are in line with other New Hampshire nonprofits and staff are mission-driven, not overpaid. He refuted claims of high earnings and noted his background in business and education. Gillett referenced a 2011 moratorium request by then-Mayor Gatsas on refugee resettlement, which was rejected for similar reasons discussed today, and noted Gatsas later supported funding as an Executive Council member. He provided written testimony with more details and offered to answer questions.
HB1706
Oppose03:40:45.890 - 4:36:06 PM
Nikki Schultz, Executive Director of Building Community in New Hampshire, opposed HB 1706, emphasizing that the Refugee Resettlement Program reflects American values of compassion and opportunity for those fleeing persecution. Refugees undergo rigorous legal processes and contribute to communities through hard work. She highlighted fiscal benefits: a 2005-2019 report showed net gains of $31.5 billion federally and $92.3 billion to state/local governments, with New Hampshire investing federal dollars in workforce self-sufficiency at no taxpayer cost. The program is vital for New Hampshire's aging population and economy, where immigrants comprise 7% of the workforce and are key in industries like manufacturing (10%), professional services (9.2%), and healthcare (8.5%). Withdrawing from the program would reduce local control, leading to fragmented integration via the federal Wilson Fish Alternative Program and potential federal overreach. The bill undermines fiscal investment, workforce growth, and American principles.
HB1706
Oppose03:44:24.830 - 4:39:45 PM
Richard Menard, former Executive Director of Building Community in New Hampshire for seven years and resident of Bow, focused on New Hampshire's economics. He noted Manchester's 2006 pause on refugees but 2019 reversal by the Board of Aldermen and Mayor, joined by Concord's mayor and Governor Sununu, affirming the program's economic value. Tech executives seek to hire 6,000 in the millyard and regenerative medicine valley, many in non-degree jobs like loading docks and cleaning, which new Americans can fill amid workforce shortages. Last year, BCNH assisted 400 eligible individuals, 79% aged 18-60, who are young, work-ready, and often hold multiple jobs. He urged voting the bill Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) for the state's benefit.
HB1706
Oppose03:47:07.156 - 4:42:28 PM
Clement Kigugu, a U.S. citizen, resident, pastor, and director of Overcomers Refuge Services, opposed HB 1706 based on his personal refugee experience fleeing danger. He described leaving home, language, and belonging behind, arriving with only hope, and now leading community efforts. Concerned by the bill's tone and misinformation, he was encouraged by community compassion from churches and neighbors. The issue involves real people—families fleeing war, violence, and persecution after years in camps—seeking not handouts but chances to work and belong. He shared how welcoming words transformed his life and warned against rejecting those escaping peril. Through his organization, he has seen refugees achieve stability and help others, emphasizing dignity and purpose over fear.
HB1706
Oppose03:52:25.221 - 4:47:46 PM
Dylan Hoey detailed the intensive vetting process for refugees, including referrals from UNHCR or US embassy, screenings against global databases, biometric checks, in-person interviews by USCIS, social media reviews, and medical screenings. He emphasized that national security professionals from the State Department and DHS handle this process. Hoey argued that refugees who endure this should be welcomed for their resilience and contributions, urging the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate.
HB1706
Support03:54:59.781 - 4:50:20 PM
Patrick Binder argued that funding refugee resettlement violates Article III of the New Hampshire Constitution by taxing citizens without protecting their natural rights. He described the bill as a step to avoid a constitutional crisis and address economic and emotional strains on youth. Binder referenced past efforts to end the program, claimed refugees do not assimilate based on studies including one from UNH showing fraud and returns to home countries, and cited examples of imported tribal conflicts. He urged unanimous recommendation to the Senate, emphasizing protection of liberty for Americans over economic replacement.
HB1735
Support04:01:53.658 - 4:57:14 PM
Rachel Lambert supported the bill to allow access to experimental treatments that have passed phase one FDA trials for patients with chronic disabilities or illnesses. She noted patients already travel abroad for such treatments and emphasized the bill's opt-in nature with patient and physician consent, including guardrails and oversight. Lambert endorsed potential amendments to exclude foreign bad actors but opposed blocking legitimate innovation. She highlighted New Hampshire's advantages over places like Montana due to proximity to Boston's biomedical expertise and potential for economic growth through medical innovation.
HB1735
Support04:03:27.518 - 4:58:48 PM
Ryan Lambert testified about his work developing experimental clinics and discussions with companies seeking jurisdictions for innovative treatments. He stressed that such activity will occur regardless, and HB 1735 positions New Hampshire to attract it, citing examples like Delaware's corporate law and Utah's Silicon Slopes for economic impact. Lambert argued the bill ensures oversight and data collection, revitalizes the economy, retains young people, and signals openness to innovation, preventing treatments from happening unregulated elsewhere.
HB1735
Information Only04:10:06.954 - 5:05:27 PM
The chair calls for a motion to come out of executive session. Motion made by Senator apprentice, seconded by Senator gave. All in favor, no opposition. Business of the day concluded, meeting adjourned.