Lede — At a State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs committee hearing that ran through the morning and into an afternoon executive session, lawmakers heard hours of public and expert testimony on the Jones Act, the Smith–Mundt Modernization Act and other measures, and then voted to advance several of those measures to the full legislature.

Nut graf — The committee’s agenda paired a long-standing debate over the 1920 Merchant Marine Act (the “Jones Act”) with bills on federal information policy and several procedural measures asking Congress to call an Article V convention. Lawmakers said they sought input from a broad set of witnesses; witnesses included shipyard and mariner representatives, labor and industry trade groups, former federal maritime officials, a retired U.S. Navy captain, legal and public‑policy experts, and a set of citizens and academics focused on climate and public information policy.

Body — Jones Act debate: Representative Jason Moffett (prime sponsor) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 10 advocating reform of the Jones Act, and he walked the committee through economic and national‑security arguments for changing the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Moffett cited analysis saying U.S. ship construction costs far exceed foreign shipyards, argued limits on foreign ownership and foreign‑built ships reduce competition and raise fuel and shipping costs, and said New England’s winter fuel needs mean the state depends on maritime deliveries.

Testimony for preserving the Jones Act came from Brian Vahey, vice president for the Atlantic Region of American Waterways Operators (AWO). Vahey told the committee the Jones Act supports a U.S. domestic fleet, protects maritime jobs and underwrites military sealift capability; he called the law vital to national security and to New Hampshire ports’ economies.

Other witnesses included Dan McGuire of Epsom (co‑sponsor), Andrew Schrosel (mariner and attorney), Richard Balzano (former deputy maritime administrator), and Dan McGuire. Witnesses who supported repeal or reform described lost competitiveness in U.S. shipbuilding, examples where U.S. buyers could not use U.S.-built ships because of component sourcing rules, and argued that allowing foreign investment and ownership screening through CFIUS could address security concerns.

The committee debated an amendment from the prime sponsor to change the resolution’s operative language from “repeal the Jones Act” to “reform the Jones Act.” After executive session and a recorded vote the committee approved the resolution as amended (OTP/A) by roll call vote.

Smith–Mundt and federal information policy: Representative Fred Belcher (prime sponsor for HR 12) introduced a resolution urging Congress to reinsert a prohibition on government propaganda directed at U.S. citizens that was removed by the Smith–Mundt Modernization Act of 2013. Committee members questioned precise scope and precedent. Testimony for the change stressed the scale of federal funding for overseas information programs and recent press reporting about federal contracts; opponents warned about conflating independent media behavior with government action. The committee voted to advance the resolution to the full legislature.

Article V applications and related measures: The committee also considered multiple measures tied to Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The body discussed HB 264 (requirements for state delegates to any Article V convention) and two separate concurrent resolutions applying for or rescinding prior applications. Committee members debated the merits and risks of an Article V convention and the degree to which a state should constrain its delegates. Some members argued for keeping New Hampshire’s existing application(s) active; others favored restraint or study. The committee advanced one applying resolution while taking no‑action or filing others for further study as detailed below.

Climate resolution and public discourse: Representative Moffett also introduced HCR 1, a resolution urging full consideration of all perspectives when forming state climate policy. Testimony showed sharp disagreement: scientists, public‑health researchers and climate advocates urged policy based on peer‑reviewed science and warned about anxiety and harms caused by misinformation; other witnesses and lawmakers warned about “alarmist” rhetoric, urged inclusion of dissenting viewpoints and argued state policy should consider economic impacts on households and energy reliability. After discussion the committee voted to advance the resolution.

Votes at a glance — executive session outcomes
- HB 264 (Article V delegates to a convention): OTP (moved forward) — committee vote recorded 15 yes, 2 no; outcome advanced to floor.
- HCR 3 (application for an Article V convention): OTP — committee vote recorded 10 yes, 7 no; advanced to floor.
- HCR 5 (rescind 2012 Article V application): Committee first read OTP failed; subsequently the committee voted ITL (inexpedient to legislate) 10–7 — effectively leaving the earlier application in place.
- HJR 1 (natural rights joint resolution): OTP — committee vote recorded 10 yes, 7 no; advanced to floor.
- HCR 10 (Jones Act): Amendment adopted (changed operative language from “repeal” to “reform”); OTP/A (as amended) — committee vote recorded 11 yes, 6 no; advanced to floor as amended.
- HR 12 (Smith–Mundt policy resolution): OTP — committee vote recorded 10 yes, 7 no; advanced to floor.
- HCR 1 (climate information/discourse): OTP — committee vote recorded 10 yes, 7 no; advanced to floor.

Ending — The committee closed after completing its executive session on 16 assigned measures and asked staff to prepare reports for the full House. Sponsors and the ranking member said they would try to draft majority and minority reports for the coming days; committee leaders asked to receive reports by Sunday evening where possible.

Quotations — Direct quotes below are taken verbatim from testimony captured in the official hearing record. Examples include Representative Moffett saying early in the hearing, “So the Jones Act is shorthand for the Merchant Marine Act of 1920,” and Brian Vahey of AWO telling the committee, “A vote for HCR 10 is a vote against New Hampshire jobs, a vote against strong borders, against military readiness.”

Sources — All quotations and vote tallies are taken from the committee’s official hearing and executive session record for the State‑Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee.