The House, Thursday, February 20, 2025

Rep. Wendy Thomas (D - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, HB 682 removes us from the table on any discussion about offshore wind. You know, when I was in Greece, I saw many wind turbines on the tops of virtually every mountain range. How did you get the people to accept wind power, I asked our guide. He looked at me like I was nuts. "We respect our people, and we respect our land. It's free energy, why wouldn't we use wind power?" Why wouldn't we indeed? We hear a lot of energy bills in our committee and many times that old and clearly debatable axiom comes up, "let the free market take care of it." However, in order for a free market to be free, it actually needs to be free. One cannot support the idea of a free market on one hand, throttling an innovative market on the other hand just because you don't understand it or because it can't be monetized in the same way that fossil fuels can. You either believe in a free market or you don't. While the market is not favorable to offshore wind right now, it is expensive technology, changes are being made on an almost daily basis. Improvements that will enhance performance and lower costs will be coming down the road. Removing us from this discussion is to put and keep New Hampshire's head into its very rocky sand. Also, let us not forget that wind power offers an economic stimulus for New Hampshire. New industry with good clean energy jobs would be available to our workforce, something that is desperately needed in our state. New Hampshire's energy strategy is one of all of the above. It's a set of policies that support oil and natural gas, and simultaneously every other form of domestic energy, including solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear. Removing wind circumvents our agreed upon energy policy and unnecessarily restricts what we can use now or in the future. This bill hobbles us. In the majority report, the environment was raised. Look not only am I considered a tree hugger, but I am old enough to have had a save the whales bumper sticker on my VW Beetle in high school. I am very concerned about the environment. I live in a town where an industrial polluter has poisoned our environment. I fight for accountability every day. But let's look at the bigger picture. The Gulf of Maine has already heated up. In fact, it has warmed faster than 99% of the global oceans. Warmer water results in ecological change. Just like we are seeing tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico become cat 4 hurricanes in 24 hours. Excuse me, I'm talking.

Rep. Wendy Thomas (D - Hills 12)So, we are seeing changes in all large bodies of water, like the Gulf of Maine. The weather is changing as is the fish population. For example, lobsters are becoming more susceptible to shell disease and predatory fish because of warming water. Warming waters are also causing lobsters to migrate north and farther offshore to waters that are colder. Now let's talk about those whales that were mentioned in the majority report. There are ongoing fabricated stories about whales being harmed by wind power. We hear it all the time. It's kind of like that urban legend about that kid who died from eating pop rocks. However, according to NOAA, which is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is peer reviewed by the way, "At this point, there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause whale deaths. There are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities." And here is the thing, if you are truly concerned about whales, then you would do something about climate change. The rapid warming of the planet is leading to a loss of habitat for whales and greater competition for a diminishing amount of prey species. It is affecting the timing and ranges of their migration, their distribution and even their ability to reproduce. Climate change and our reliance on fossil fuels is only going to accelerate those changes. So, yes although I no longer have my VW, I still believe that we need to save the whales, but it is not through stopping wind power. It will be through stopping our reliance on fossil fuels. Finally, let's talk about that executive order that was mentioned in the majority report that eliminates offshore wind. To date, the current administration has signed over 65 executive orders. Many of which are currently being legally challenged with allegations that those orders are unconstitutional, exceed presidential authority and infringe upon first and fifth amendment rights. I'm not sure...

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend. The member who is requesting a point of order has to come down to the podium and state what their point of order is. The member is recognized for a point of order.

Rep. Bryan Morse (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So, this is my first time being up here so.

Rep. Bryan Morse (R - Merr 3)Point of order is that this has nothing to do with the bill.

Speaker PackardThat's not really a point of order. Unfortunately, I don't know what every bill says, so I can't say it is, or it isn't about the bill. The member may continue.

Rep. Wendy Thomas (D - Hills 12)Thank you. Thank you, Mister Speaker. As I was saying, I'm not sure referencing a current administrative EO right now is the flex that you think it is. Bottom line, when it comes to offshore wind power, New Hampshire should be at the table. We don't have it now, but we will have it someday. It's coming. Keeping us in the wind power discussion is an investment in New Hampshire's energy future and it is a true example of a free market. For these reasons, I ask you to oppose the motion of OTP so that a more energy friendly and job promoting motion might be considered. Mister Speaker, I request a roll call please. Thank you.

Rep. James Summers (R - Rock 20)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for your leadership. After analyzing the European leadership, I thank God every day of our freedom of speech we have here in America. Mister Speaker, HB 682 would remove the offshore wind industry development from the Office of Energy Innovation. It would repeal the offshore wind industry workforce training center committee and the offshore and port development commission and moves the grid modernization advisory council and the hydrogen advisory council to the office of energy innovation. After President Trump's executive order to eliminate offshore wind and turbines, the committee has received experienced, expert, peer reviewed research in testimony from the fisheries associations on the chlorination and chemicals added to the ocean water by offshore wind transmission cables, along with information removing the plankton from the surface, destroying local sea life and the sea life cycle. Electromagnetic fields caused by small fiber optic cables in the ocean can reroute sharks and rays disrupting offshore fisheries, never mind the electromagnetic field created by the transmission lines from offshore wind turbines. Mister Speaker, who would have thought the day would come when the left would hold the religion of climate change with higher precedence than Greenpeace? The fact is that offshore wind is more expensive and destructive than any other renewable energy source. Press the green button on the ought to pass motion for this crucial bill.

Speaker PackardRep. Thomas has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on HB 682. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Cormen for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Thomas Cormen (D - Graf 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the market-based approach to energy that we embrace does not currently favor offshore wind, but if I also know that technology changes so that market conditions may someday be favorable to offshore wind, then Mister Speaker would I press the red button to not prematurely lock out New Hampshire from the potential benefits of offshore wind?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Bernardy for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. JD Bernardy (R - Rock 36)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know offshore wind is not free market but is wholly government subsidized. And if I know the reorganization of the office of energy innovation will bring efficiency and focus to important and emerging energy programs, would I push the green button?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on HB 682. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 206 voting Yea; 163 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Daniel Veilleux (D - Hills 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I would like to speak about HB 368, a measure that focuses on a shared priority, protecting the health of our children. When we talk about secondhand smoke, we are not dealing with speculation or theory. The science is clear, and the risks are real. We know that cigarette smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals, hundreds of which are toxic and at least 70 known carcinogens. We know that when an adult smokes in a confined space like a car, the levels of dangerous pollutants can be up to 10 times higher than in a home. We know that a child's lungs, still developing and more vulnerable, absorb these chemicals at a higher rate. Exposure to secondhand smoke has been directly linked to higher rates of asthma and chronic respiratory infections in children, increase risk of sudden infant death syndrome, long term affects including reduced lung function and greater susceptibility to disease later in life. But this is not just about traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes or vaping devices also expose children to harmful substances. Researchers found that vape aerosol is not just harmless water vaper. It contains nicotine, fine metal particles and volatile organic compounds that damage lung tissue. While adults make informed decisions about what they choose to inhale, the children in the backseat of a car has no choice at all. Some might say this bill is not needed, that parents will make responsible choices on their own and many do, but pediatricians, public health experts and decades of research tell us that this remains a persistent health issue. A child trapped in a smoke-filled car has no escape. Rolling down a window does not eliminate exposure. Studies show that toxins still circulate and settle in a confined space. This bill simply ensures that when children are inside a vehicle, they are not subjected to something we know is harmful, preventable and completely within our power to stop. HB 368 does not restrict adults from smoking or vaping in their daily lives. It does not apply to homes or other private spaces, it simply a targeted, sensible measure to prevent children from being involuntarily exposed to toxic air in an enclosed environment where they have no control. This is not about politics. It's not about personal freedoms. It is about protecting the most vulnerable among us from an entirely preventable health risk. I urge you to support this bill, not because it regulates, but because it safeguards. Not because it limits, but because it shields children from harm that could affect them for the rest of their lives. Thank you.

Rep. Ted Gorski (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I stand in support of the committee report of ITL of HB 368. I do this for two main reasons. Number one, the flawed premise of the bill. The main premise of this bill was to eliminate smoking and e-cigarettes when a passenger is under the age of 16. However, if someone does smoke with a passenger under the age of 16, it is only enforceable under a secondary offense. So, if a driver decides to obey the rules of the road, he or she can have a passenger under the age of 16 and can smoke to their heart's content. It defeats the whole premise of the bill. Secondly, it invades a car owner's civil liberties. If this bill is passed, it allows the government to tell someone what they can or cannot do in their vehicle. What's next? Car radio is too loud, and it hurts their ears? Maybe you can't drink coffee because it is hot and will spill on your lap. The bill is a slippery slope. With that, I ask you to press the green button and tell the government to stay out of our vehicle. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. Rep. Granger has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 368. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Sykes for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. George Sykes (D - Graf 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, if I know that every child deserves the right to a safe and healthy environment. And, if I also know that secondhand smoke is a proven hazard, not only to everyone's health, but particularly to children's health. And, finally, if I know that a child is often required to ride in a vehicle where the adults are smoking and they have no choice but do so, would I now vote no on the pending ITL motion so that another motion can be introduced?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Gorski for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Ted Gorski (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill, if passed, will infringe on the civil liberties of smokers and drivers. And, if I know that the premise of this bill is flawed, then would I press the green button to support the ITL motion? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 368. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Before I announce the vote, the next two votes are going to be division votes with PI's only so if everybody stays in their seat, we can get through it pretty quickly. Have all members had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 213 voting Yea, 157 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.