[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6649235,"mediaKeyId","2521412-5a8e7ec8e6e8122ed9e174d85db15026","parentId",2521412,"title","Votes at a glance: key outcomes from the March 6 New Hampshire House session","audioSeconds",497,"startMs",851000,"endMs",1348000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2521412-5a8e7ec8e6e8122ed9e174d85db15026&start=851&end=1348","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2521412-5a8e7ec8e6e8122ed9e174d85db15026/thumbnail_851000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6649235/New-Hampshire/Votes-at-a-glance-key-outcomes-from-the-March-6-New-Hampshire-House-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6649235-f40ddd92b07ba423696aa90bb3baadb3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775533425&Signature=erMZfaTs2RT7cAflK1PDwB08DlLalIr7R81KrDV8EzxmY5JC8nqnopk3dILe31K4IfIDAtYpWbavHpYh3405TMvsZHP6ROwausGlmGndV3ZI74H30REcc5qSFiG0Vn3~aKQLvbVWJtwTV68StQ7YE-1eXnvyhLbp3HkdzH~slBQiVAQZZ4eBEhM6JUTGRvEvmgBC7EkuZzWXNdrDxEb8wox~F~hJ4-xJbKwyR~YzCtS5XnBbAzJjSIlXtZw9KJ2kpOOZJ14HLH~XNvX-VEMArTdOaujseQ-ZYRqtJPhGq4fUt9YL5R3cRCtJePO2tPOwArgJicBojY3~LgcuYwf35g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-03-06T22:39:04.29Z","article","Key formal outcomes from the New Hampshire House session on March 6 (selected items):

- HR 17 (Revenue Estimates): The House adopted the Ways and Means committee recommendation on the state unrestricted revenue estimate (House Resolution 17). Members then voted to lay HR 17 on the table. (Motion adopted on the floor; procedural action recorded in the House journal.)

- HB 224 (Renewable Energy Fund rebates): The House adopted the committee report on an amended bill that would redirect Renewable Energy Fund monies to ratepayer rebates and other purposes; the motion passed on a roll call, 200 in favor, 62 opposed, and the bill was referred to Ways and Means.

- HB 2 24 (same as HB224): Committee report adopted (roll call recorded at 200–62); bill goes to Ways and Means for fiscal consideration.

- HB 7 23 (Statewide energy data platform): The House adopted the committee recommendation to retain the statutory mandate and referred the bill to the Finance Committee (roll call 201–60). Supporters said the platform could unlock consumer savings; opponents said costs and benefits remain uncertain.

- HB 94 (Medicaid coverage of nontherapeutic neonatal circumcision): After extended debate the House adopted the committee report to advance the bill and referred it to Finance (roll call 184–183). Debate covered medical evidence, cultural impact and proposed redirection of savings into pediatric vision screening.

- HB 6 49 (Vehicle inspection program): The House adopted the committee report on the bill to remove passenger‑vehicle inspection requirements and eliminate the motor vehicle air pollution abatement fund; the committee report passed on a roll call, 212–43, and was sent to Ways and Means for fiscal review and federal‑compliance assessment.

- HB 5 24 (Repeal New Hampshire Vaccine Association): The House adopted the committee report on the bill that would dissolve the New Hampshire Vaccine Association; roll call recorded 189 in favor and 181 opposed. The bill was referred to Ways and Means.

- Additional procedural outcomes: multiple bills were reported out of committee with recommendations of inexpedient to legislate (ITL), several consent‑calendar items were adopted, and multiple bills were referred to finance or ways and means as noted on the House floor record.

For full vote tallies and committee reports, see the House journal and the committee referral records. This summary highlights items with floor debate or recorded roll calls on March 6.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Session (03/06/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Several bills and committee reports were adopted, laid on the table, or referred for further review. This roundup lists notable roll calls and procedural outcomes from the day’s floor session.","taxTitle","Public Works and Highways, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17759,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6649240,"House votes to roll back state vehicle inspection program; bill advances after split floor debate",625,22860000,23485000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2521412-5a8e7ec8e6e8122ed9e174d85db15026&start=22860&end=23485","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2521412-5a8e7ec8e6e8122ed9e174d85db15026/thumbnail_22860000.jpg","/articles/6649240/New-Hampshire/House-votes-to-roll-back-state-vehicle-inspection-program-bill-advances-after-split-floor-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6649240-6c8d6e5e767fae123bd35c8b493016a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775533425&Signature=Ee9qBuFLjqYxKF3bDo7vBL1TzYmx7L1cYI3vLF7xz-ht8OqAhHDbKdFy~Kiptfy1u4qd1JqqCwyikTpP6iroCZE~A~YMXxCr3kXnFVtW00BgnnQ8YGl5SCfxXx-6A-cN-iSeQvagsof0TlUcZZK4SSXt2WWkLpyXQWblMMQLvlzVkj9in3w4Nmo2oIiU9QTguFfkbk4Tk6N0XYz6plJW5CVthPwnIOZGEej0N1Qf3DAwbxkA~sWNevMSpYiXvO9Q2~sJTn0uP~9uN9vF-B174Ok6M~1TW5PD98ESIvkGrIjyZEZUvCQzUbumTfH2T5P-UPAjcH87BHdEmrntGfi~mA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The New Hampshire House on March 6 approved a bill to eliminate the state‑mandated vehicle safety and emissions inspection program for passenger vehicles, sending the measure to the Ways and Means Committee after a roll‑call vote.

Supporters said the inspection regime is outdated, inconsistently enforced and places an unequal burden on lower‑income drivers. Opponents warned of potential federal consequences, including loss of federal highway funds tied to emissions compliance.

Representative Gayson, speaking in favor on the floor, said the inspection requirement creates “a false sense of security” and disproportionately affects lower‑income residents, adding that other states have eliminated similar programs without seeing higher crash or fatality rates.

Representative Miller, who spoke in opposition, said the bill as written posed a financial risk to the state because the Department of Transportation’s federal funding could be jeopardized if the state fell out of compliance with Environmental Protection Agency requirements for vehicle emissions programs. “We currently have an agreement with the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency,” Miller said, and eliminating those elements could put “as much as $200 million a year in DOT funding at risk.”

The House recorded 212 votes in favor and 43 against on the committee report and the motion to advance; the committee report was adopted and the matter was referred to Ways and Means.

Supporters said responsibility for safe operation of a car rests with drivers and owners, and that the inspection system had become a private‑sector business subject to complaints and inconsistent enforcement. Opponents urged a more surgical approach to reform — for example, the Transportation Committee has retained other bills that would revisit inspection rules and enforcement without instantly eliminating the program.

With the vote, the House authorized the legislative process to continue; Ways and Means will review fiscal implications and the state’s standing with federal partners.","After extensive floor debate, the House adopted the committee report on House Bill 6 49 to remove statutory inspection requirements for passenger vehicles and eliminate funding for the motor vehicle air pollution abatement fund; the measure passed by roll call and goes to Ways and Means.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6649243,"House keeps statewide energy data platform alive after members reject repeal; bill sent to Finance Committee",800,20620000,21420000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2521412-5a8e7ec8e6e8122ed9e174d85db15026&start=20620&end=21420","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2521412-5a8e7ec8e6e8122ed9e174d85db15026/thumbnail_20620000.jpg","/articles/6649243/New-Hampshire/House-keeps-statewide-energy-data-platform-alive-after-members-reject-repeal-bill-sent-to-Finance-Committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6649243-b30ee12cc7fff0a9c365c65114e03e75/orig.mp4?Expires=1775533425&Signature=jDWof~t-ChDI-ab2q6B5eNoyWRnVhf5xMIXaM8a9PyV10xRHN~k8UZ0F1QtnXL6gAdiwsY7d9J0U2wL4Nqfd~fEf~P4UNlkxKwyUOO9o5aHQiWdkAEj0U88YIHZNjcRhzIPwMs6QFOmLg9GdoKVfAnLzHK9zQ8MpAaVCtvlfdgeeQERgxu3sOnq0lXzOa-zB2bCiFueZ~0n~Eu7Vz2I-iwN88d78ygB7bucz7tI3ZVUirBwfrRtpb60AKIRJShdjZ-Io0ZJjc8cR64maF1Nub~QzlyT~m3~p2-VkyW~OjtId2U8Wtnn3mssZXjV4~~qmAbwnx3FNxlpRy~HzzaZvkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House on March 6 declined to repeal a six‑year-old mandate to pursue a statewide energy data platform, adopting the committee’s recommendation and sending House Bill 7 23 to the Finance Committee.

Proponents argued the platform — designed to consolidate utility electric and gas usage data into a secure, automated hub — could let consumers, municipalities and private firms analyze energy use and find cost savings. Opponents said the project has been years in the making without final software procurement and urged repeal to avoid continued state expenditures.

Representative Jerick McGee, speaking against repeal, said the platform is intended to give ratepayers access to information that can generate savings: “Automating all our energy data in one place can give individuals a way to figure out the cheapest way to lower their energy bills,” McGee said. He urged colleagues not to “kill this project before the cost‑benefit analysis is completed this fall.”

Representative Lex Korman, who opposed keeping the mandate, said the project had not materialized into deployed technology after six years and that prior federal grant applications were rejected because the programs did not adequately demonstrate economic viability. “It’s best left to entrepreneurs, to risk takers, and the free market, not to a state government bureaucracy,” Korman said.

On a roll call, the House adopted the committee recommendation to retain the mandate and sent the bill to Finance; the recorded tally was 201 members voting in favor and 60 opposed.

Supporters pointed to outside preliminary studies suggesting the platform’s benefits would mostly accrue to residential ratepayers and could be substantial once the final cost and deployment plan are set. Opponents said the utilities can already offer customer‑facing usage portals (citing Unitil’s platform as an example) and questioned whether a statewide platform would provide net benefit after connection and governance costs.

The Public Utilities Commission docket that originally set up the effort remains the forum for a formal cost‑benefit analysis; lawmakers who supported keeping the mandate said the House decision preserves the state’s ability to see the formal analysis through the PUC process before abandoning the project.

The Finance Committee will now receive the bill and the record for fiscal review and will consider the project’s estimated costs and the claimed consumer savings as the next step.","Lawmakers voted to advance the committee recommendation on House Bill 7 23, preserving the statewide multi‑use energy data platform mandate and referring it to the Finance Committee after supporters said the platform could unlock consumer savings.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6649248,"House committee report advances bill to remove nontherapeutic neonatal circumcision from Medicaid coverage after extended debate",1824,6296000,8120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2521412-5a8e7ec8e6e8122ed9e174d85db15026&start=6296&end=8120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2521412-5a8e7ec8e6e8122ed9e174d85db15026/thumbnail_6296000.jpg","/articles/6649248/New-Hampshire/House-committee-report-advances-bill-to-remove-nontherapeutic-neonatal-circumcision-from-Medicaid-coverage-after-extended-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6649248-9e537d4052552e54bd7552553a1ebcd3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775533425&Signature=MoZ5fwCOYCNz-~UiYyFulYIQ3BCOC9Jb6LeXNZdd4VYI4Q18a7tLYzVHrU0iBFg4LyLLGdkhmpnT2MHjMa9rbwHZctVxBaMznly2oXFmk45MZIiAgQ6PCiFhredkyoklMx4UlNk70qSivOoyUO5jWs4tEvPehscuNim-ypB323-WFscddxj4dGeGXo7CTyxNJWO9ALIWBhy43qkna7-vfz0qIxNlWMpnbQmhbOWar9YJh~syQLYvongKE0YfPTKIxlzr6A1N-RJfBr74zmMVUt69DtKH29q3a0LOggzWFDBN8VPIgQ3wjLVA7Atg-7eOCUT~2wi8nzd0N1I5GmcYSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The New Hampshire House on March 6 advanced a measure that would remove coverage of nontherapeutic neonatal circumcision from the State Medicaid plan, sending House Bill 94 to the Finance Committee after more than two hours of debate.

Lawmakers disagreed sharply over medical evidence and cultural implications. Supporters of keeping Medicaid coverage said major medical associations characterize neonatal circumcision as having net health benefits and warned that repealing coverage would disproportionately affect religious communities and low‑income families. Opponents argued the procedure is nontherapeutic, carries risks, and that public funds should not be used to pay for a nonessential, culturally specific cosmetic procedure.

Representative Matt Drew, chairing the Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs committee, summarized the panel’s recommendation that the bill “ought to pass,” citing stakeholder testimony and committee consideration. “This is an incredibly complex issue,” he said on the House floor, and concluded the committee could not endorse the bill without addressing concerns raised in testimony.

Representative Reid, who offered a floor amendment earlier in the debate to move savings from the change into a pediatric vision‑screening program, said the amendment was intended to make the policy shift budget‑neutral and to avoid framing the change as an attack on Medicaid. She described nontherapeutic neonatal circumcision as “not considered medically necessary by any medical organization in the world” and argued the amendment would reallocate any savings to preventive care that many states already provide.

Opponents cited guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in arguing that neonatal circumcision provides some health benefits. Representative Birch told colleagues that “the health benefits outweigh its risks,” and he listed conditions — urinary tract infections, certain cancers and reduced transmission of some sexually transmitted infections — that professional groups cite when supporting coverage.

Several speakers framed the issue beyond medical evidence. Representative Birch and others warned that repealing Medicaid coverage could send an exclusionary message to Muslim and Jewish communities that commonly practice neonatal circumcision. Representative Sodhi described the procedure as a removal of erogenous tissue and urged repeal on bodily‑autonomy grounds.

After extended floor debate and multiple division and roll‑call votes, the House recorded 184 members voting in the affirmative and 183 in the negative on the committee report to advance the bill; the report was adopted and House Bill 94 was referred to the Finance Committee for further consideration.

The bill does not ban circumcision; rather, it would remove state Medicaid reimbursement for nontherapeutic neonatal circumcision. Sponsors and opponents alike repeatedly told the House the measure would not outlaw the practice or criminalize parents who choose it. Proponents emphasized the state’s fiscal and ethical role in deciding which procedures Medicaid should pay for; opponents emphasized established medical endorsements and concerns about access and cultural impact.

The House also considered and rejected a floor amendment that would have redirected savings dollar for dollar into a pediatric vision‑screening program, after which the main motion to advance the committee report prevailed by the close margin noted above.

The Finance Committee will now review the bill’s fiscal implications and policy language. If sent back to the House with changes, members will have another opportunity for debate before final passage or defeat.","Lawmakers debated whether Medicaid should continue to cover nontherapeutic neonatal circumcision, with supporters calling it medically beneficial and opponents characterizing it as a non‑medical, culturally driven procedure. The House adopted the committee report and referred House Bill 94 to the Finance Committee after a close roll call.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: key outcomes from the March 6 New Hampshire House session

House votes to roll back state vehicle inspection program; bill advances after split floor debate

House keeps statewide energy data platform alive after members reject repeal; bill sent to Finance Committee

House committee report advances bill to remove nontherapeutic neonatal circumcision from Medicaid coverage after extended debate