Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blockchain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate commerce committee splits on blockchain bill; sponsor-backed amendment wins
Summary
The committee adopted a sponsor-requested amendment to HB639 that tightens the bill's definition of digital-asset exchanges, but the underlying bill drew strong consumer-protection and fraud concerns and the committee split on passage, sending the measure for further study.
The Senate Commerce Committee on [date not specified] considered House Bill 639, an act addressing the use of and disputes over blockchain and digital currencies. Senator McHugh introduced an amendment requested by the Secretary of State and the Treasurer to refine the bill’s definition of a “digital asset exchange”; the committee adopted that amendment by voice vote.
Opponents raised consumer-protection and public-safety concerns during debate. Senator Ricciardi said, “I really don't want to vote against this bill, but I can't vote for it as it is,” citing constituents’ complaints and examples from other states where rapid enactments required quick fixes. Other senators warned of noise, strain on the electrical grid and potential fraud tied to some cryptocurrency schemes.
Supporters argued New Hampshire should be open to emerging businesses. Senator Murphy said the bill’s language recognizes that political subdivisions may apply local noise ordinances and that the state should not ‘‘shut ourselves off to entire industries.’’
When the committee voted on passage of the underlying bill, the roll split 3–3. Committee members subsequently moved to send the measure to further study (interim study) so sponsors can address the concerns raised and bring revised language back at a later date.
What happens next: HB639 leaves committee without final passage and may return with sponsor revisions or appear as a floor amendment when the bill comes up in the full Senate.
