THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

CASE NO. 2020-0414

Request for an Opinion of the Justices (Quorum under Part II, Article 20)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF MOTION TO STRIKE MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF REPRESENTATIVE LEE OXENHAM This filing was prepared with the assistance of a New Hampshire attorney.

Now comes the Honorable Joseph A. Hoell Jr., Secretary of The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition Inc., and the Honorable Andrew J. Manuse, Chairman of ReopenNH, and respectfully submit this Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Denial of their Motion to Strike the Memorandum of Law submitted by Representative Lee Oxenham and in support thereof, state as follows: 1. Hoell and Manuse had far more to offer in aid of the Court’s effort to answer the question presented, but did not do so out of respect for the Court’s 4,000-word limit. The Oxenham Memorandum exceeded that limit by over 50%, which overage bespeaks wanton disregard. 2. It is patently unfair to enforce rules unevenly. 3. With knowledge that the length limit was “flexible”, petitioners would have advised this Honorable Court as follows: 4. Dr. David R Coursin, MD – in support of electronic meetings – writes “...To insist that we cannot plan accordingly, because our original constitution did not specifically enumerate such issues, is short-sighted at least, and potentially endangering at worst.” Regardless of any alleged “good” that remote session would offer, there is no exception for an alleged “good” based on violation of Page 1 of 11

constitutional provisions. For example, Dr. Coursin claims that “this is the 4th such pandemic since 1957 [and therefore] there is good reason to expect further widespread and disruptive infectious events...". If true, that supports a view that there were many missed opportunities to amend the Constitution, to address the issue before this Court. 5. “The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained.” United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 5 (1892). 6. Our Constitution’s framers – and sitting legislators – knew well the extensive history of pestilence and disease. They chose not to amend the constitution to allow for remote meetings. Part II Article 100 allows legislators to ask for a constitutional convention or they may offer a legislative amendment. Since 1784 there have been some 200 Constitutional amendments many in recent decades. 7. “Reviewing the history of the constitution and its amendments is often instructive, and in so doing, "it is the duty of the court to place itself as nearly as possible in the situation of the parties at the time the instrument was made, that it may gather their intention from the language used, viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances. While the constitution as it now stands is to be considered as a whole as if enacted at one time, to ascertain the meaning of particular expressions, it may be necessary to give attention to the circumstances under which they became parts of the instrument." Attorney-General v. Morin, 93 N.H. 40, 43, 35 A.2d 513, 514 (1943) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Opinion of the Justices, 126 N.H. at 495, 494 A.2d at 266.” Warburton v. Thomas, 136 N.H. 383, 387 (1992).

Page 2 of 11

8. "'[W]e regard it as a well settled and unquestioned rule of construction that the language used by the legislature, in the statutes enacted by them, and that used by the people in the great paramount law which controls the legislature as well as the people, is to be always understood and explained in that sense in which it was used at the time when the constitution and the laws were adopted.'" Opinion of the Justices, 121 N.H. at 483, 431 A.2d at 136 (emphasis added in 121 N.H. at 483, 431 A.2d at 136) (quoting Opinion of the Justices, 41 N.H. at 551). Warburton v. Thomas, 136 N.H. 383, 387 (1992). 9. Art. 43. [In Cases of Disagreement Governor to Adjourn or Prorogue Legislature; If Causes Exist, May Convene Them Elsewhere.] In cases of disagreement between the two houses, with regard to the time or place of adjournment or prorogation, the governor, with advice of council, shall have a right to adjourn or prorogue the general court, not exceeding ninety days at any one time, as he may determine the public good may require, and he shall dissolve the same on the first Wednesday of December biennially. And, in cases whereby dangers may arise to the health or lives of the members from their attendance at the general court at any place, the governor may direct the session to be holden at some other the most convenient place within the state. June 2, 1784. (emphasis supplied) 10. The Constitution is clear, the Governor has the power to direct the session to be held some other place “place” is understood to mean a physical environment, space, physical surroundings.1 11. Sheridan’s 1781 Dictionary2 defines: To Assemble: v.a. To bring together into one place. To Assemble: v.n. To meet together.

1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/place last visited 10/26/2020.

2 Thomas Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition, 2 volumes; London: Printed for Charles Dilly et al., 1797) available at https://archive.org/details/completedictiona02sheriala. Last visited October 26, 2020.

Page 3 of 11

Place: a particular portion of space; locality; local relation; local existence; space in general; a seat, residence, mansion,... Present: Not absent, being face to face, being at hand; not past, not future ...

These words are used specifically at certain Articles in the Constitution, and as this contemporaneous source clearly evidences a physical place of meeting together. 12. If one substitutes the definitions in Sheridan’s for the words in the Constitution, one cannot escape the necessity of meeting in person. Note that “place” in Article 43 is singular. Even in 1794, plurals of nouns were well known. 13. In all facets of law, courts have found, "No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any such committee unless a majority of the committee were actually present." Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84, 87-88 (1949). 14. “The House insists that to be such a tribunal a committee must consist of a quorum, and we agree with the trial court's charge that, to convict, the jury had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there were "actually and physically present" a majority of the committee.” Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84, 89 (1949). 15. “A tribunal that is not competent is no tribunal, and it is unthinkable that such a body can be the instrument of criminal conviction. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming so much of the instructions to the jury as allowed them to find a quorum present without reference to the facts at the time of the alleged perjurious testimony, and its judgment is reversed.” Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84, 90 (1949). 16. This is not the first pandemic to strike our county, and it likely will not be the last. The House and Senate met through the Spanish flu. In 1918, an influenza epidemic began. (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918- commemoration/1918-pandemic-history.htm). There were no remedies against pandemic influenza: no vaccines, no anti-viral medicines, and no antibiotics to treat pneumonia, which often accompanied the flu. Appx. 1 -6.

Page 4 of 11

17. In 1918 and 1919, Statistics as to mortality and morbidity were gathered and published by the Department of Commerce Census Bureau. See Appx. 7-10, 11- 13. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was not founded until 1946 (See: https://www.cdc.gov/about/history/index.html). 18. Census Bureau data did not cover the entire country but were, “based on transcripts of death certificates received from the registration area for deaths, which in 1918 had an estimated population of 82,091,523, or 77.8 per cent of the total estimated population of the United States and the Territory of Hawaii.” (Mortality Statistics – 1918, Letter of Transmittal, Sam L. Rogers, Director of the Census to Joshua W. Alexander, Secretary of Commerce; 21 January 1920 – Appx. 8). The data covered only civilian deaths. 19. In 1918, there were 245,846 deaths from influenza. The national rate per 100,000 residents was 302.1. In 1919, the number of deaths was 84,113 (98.8 / 100,000). From 1911-17, the annual average death rate was 15.3 / 100,000 (ibid., p. 32). It is thus obvious that the pandemic flu strain caused a huge surge in mortality. 20. Of the 30 states for which statistics were gathered in 1918, New Hampshire’s death rate – 452.1 per 100,000 – was topped only by Montana (551.4). In 1919, when 33 states were included, New Hampshire’s death rate (111.4 / 100,000) put it in 12th place. (ibid., p. 32) 21. From 1877 until 1984, the General Court met every other year: so they did not convene in 1918 (see https://www.nh.gov/glance/constitution.htm). Accordingly,

“At 11 o'clock in the forenoon of the first Wednesday of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, being the day prescribed by the constitution for the Legislature of New Hampshire to assemble, the following named persons, elected senators, assembled in the capitol, in the City of Concord, in said state, and His Excellency, the Honorable Jesse M. Barton, Acting Governor, attended by the Honorable Council, having come into the Senate chamber, took and subscribed the oaths of office and were duly qualified as senators, agreeably to the provisions of the constitution …” Journal of the Honorable Senate; January Session, 1919; Wednesday, January 1, 1919, p. 3. Appx. 2. Page 5 of 11

Further,

“On the first Wednesday in January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, being the day designated by the constitution for the assembling of that body, the one hundred and sixteenth General Court of the State of New Hampshire convened at the capitol, in the City of Concord, and the representatives-elect were called to order by Harrie M. Young, clerk of the House for the preceding session. The clerk proceeded to call the roll and 382 members answering to their names, a quorum was declared present.” (Journal of the House of Representatives; January Session, 1919; Wednesday, January 1, 1919, p. 3) Appx. 6.

Governor John H. Bartlett wrote to the Senators,

“The New Hampshire General Court of 1919 has presented to me for my consideration 256 bills and 55 joint resolutions, all of which I have signed, with the exception of two, one, House Bill No. 309, which I vetoed and which failed to pass over said veto, and the other, Senate Bill No. 23, from which I have withheld my approval. This has been a legislature which faced an unusual situation and extraordinary circumstances.” (Journal of the Honorable Senate January 1919, p. 365) Appx. 4

22. It is thus clear that despite the terrible damage done by the influenza epidemic, members of both Houses of the General Court convened on 1 January 1919 in the Capitol in Concord and worked diligently for several months. 23. The current pandemic disease is not as lethal as was the 1918-19 flu strain. As to later pandemics, the CDC publishes mortality data but combines influenza and pneumonia. The likely reason: pneumonia often follows and kills those weakened by flu. 24. Until the end of the 1990s, death rates from those diseases were higher than or equal to that from COVID-19, i.e., about 30 per 100,000. After 1998, death rates from influenza and pneumonia were in the 20s/100,000. See Line 14, in the spreadsheet, which can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/contents2018.htm?search=Influenza_and_pneumon ia,

Page 6 of 11

25. Against the most recent 20 years’ worth of flu-pneumonia mortality data, COVID- 19 seems horribly threatening. But against the longer term data, not so. That the question of remote meetings had not been adjudicated, suggests that General Court members have never seriously considered any change to their time-honored practices, even when such meetings had been feasible. Appx. 14 Affidavit of Hon. Karen Wadsworth, NH House Member 1984-1994, NH House Clerk 1994-2014. 26. Zoom has been around since 2011,3 and video telephony since 1936.4 Personal computer-based video conferencing has been around since 1991 via IBM; and since 2000, has been a commonplace. Those urging this Court to answer in the negative have aptly outlined the well-known ebb and flow of various diseases over time, which supports an answer in the affirmative. The current pandemic was wholly predictable, except as to pathogen and timing. 27. As of 24 October 2020, COVID-19 had caused 473 deaths in New Hampshire. As the population of New Hampshire is about 1,300,000, that suggests a death rate of about 36/100,000. Of these 468 deaths, some 380 (81%) occurred in “long-term care settings”. Unsurprisingly, 90% of those killed by COVID-19 were aged 70 or more. See: https://www.nh.gov/covid19/dashboard/summary.htm. Further, of 765 hospitalizations for COVID-19, only 19 are still hospitalized (ibid.) 28. It is thus clear that as bad as the COVID-19 pandemic has been in New Hampshire, it has been far less destructive than was the 1918-19 influenza pandemic. Further, because the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths have occurred in “long-term care settings” - where most residents likely were elders and also in fragile health - the risk to those not in such settings is nowhere as great as it is elsewhere or as it was during the 1918-19 influenza pandemic.

3 https://zoom.us/

4https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_videotelephony. Last visited 10-26-2020

Page 7 of 11

29. These data suggest that there is no need for the General Court to abandon its time- honored practice of meeting as it has always done, and which it did in era when a far more lethal pandemic disease prevailed, for which there were then no remedies. 30. Data from the Governor’s website shows that 80.9% of the deaths have been in long-term healthcare facilities. https://www.nh.gov/covid19/dashboard/summary.htm . Residents of such facilities are more likely than not to be elderly and to be in fragile health. For Children, the risk is lower than the normal seasonal flu: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2019-2020/2019-20-pediatric-flu-deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937e4.htm.

31. In the 21st Century, pandemic diseases have not been rare. On 1 November 2005, then-President George W. Bush issued a “National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza”. Mr. Bush wrote: Most of us are accustomed to seasonal influenza, or "the flu," a viral infection that continues to be a significant public health challenge. From time to time, changes in the influenza virus result in a new strain to which people have never been exposed. These new strains have the potential to sweep the globe, causing millions of illnesses, in what is called a pandemic. A new strain of influenza virus has been found in birds in Asia, and has shown that it can infect humans. If this virus undergoes further change, it could very well result in the next human pandemic. We have an opportunity to prepare ourselves, our Nation, and our world to fight this potentially devastating outbreak of infectious disease.” (President’s Letter, 1 November 2005). Appx. 15-27 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza.

32. On 24 October 2009, President Barack Obama issued a, “Declaration of a National Emergency with Respect of the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic.” Mr. Obama wrote: “On April 26, 2009, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the "Secretary") first declared a public health emergency under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d, in response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus. The Secretary has renewed that declaration twice, on July 24, 2009, and October 1, 2009. In addition, by rapidly identifying the virus, implementing public health measures, providing guidance for health professionals

Page 8 of 11

and the general public, and developing an effective vaccine, we have taken proactive steps to reduce the impact of the pandemic and protect the health of our citizens.” (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, For Immediate Release; October 24, 2009)” Appx. 28-29, DECLARATION OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO THE 2009 H1N1 INFLUENZA PANDEMIC. 33. There is a process that must be followed to amend the New Hampshire Constitution. It is clear. The drafters of the New Hampshire Constitution and their successors were very literate and debated vigorously over choice of words. 34. Johnson’s online dictionary defines absent “To withdraw, to forbear to come into presence.” https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/absent-verb/. Johnson’s is not all encompassing, there are many historical dictionaries one may consult with varying definitions from 1700 to 1800 and we have no evidence the drafters of the New Hampshire Constitution consulted Johnson’s. Absent5 is defined as not pref[s]ent and present6 is defined as not absent, being face to face. Circular reasoning, depending on which wordsmith is consulted, surely the drafters of the New Hampshire Constitution were not imprecise or ambiguous. Thomas Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition, 2 volumes; London: Printed for Charles Dilly et al., 1797) available at https://archive.org/details/completedictiona02sheriala. 35. The proposed alternative – of “remote” meetings – will cut-off access to most residents not living in major towns or cities. In smaller towns, low population density usually makes uneconomic the provision of high-speed internet access. See Broadband Study Committee Final Report. Appx. 30-47.

5 https://archive.org/details/completedictiona01sheriala/page/n141/mode/2up page 142 last visited October 26, 2020.

6 https://archive.org/details/completedictiona02sheriala/page/n257/mode/2up page 258 last visited October 26, 2020.

Page 9 of 11

36. Lack of broadband infrastructure in the state is an ongoing issue. Appx. 48-53 SB 170-2018, Appx. 54-61 HB-132 2019 Session Sponsored by Representatives Oxenham and Abramson. 37. The Office of Strategic Initiatives (OSI) is required by law (RSA 78-A:25) to estimate the population of the state's municipalities on an annual basis. (https://www.nh.gov/osi/data-center/documents/population-estimates-2019.pdf ). These data were published as of 20 July 2020. The OSI data include population density data. These data show that even in “densely-populated” counties, there are sparsely-populated towns. Thus, in Hillsborough County, Antrim has 74.2 residents/square mile, Deering has 63.4 residents/square mile, and Windsor has 26.9 persons/square mile. 38. Approximately 326,000 residents are in towns with a population density lower than 100 persons/square mile. These residents account for about 24% of the total. 39. Presumably this Honorable Court would not countenance a diminution of civil rights’ protections for residents of smaller towns. It is hardly to be imagined that this Honorable Court would endorse a curtailing of small towns’ residents’ access to General Court proceedings. This form of apartheid cannot be acceptable, no matter the gravity of any exigency. Each New Hampshire resident is an equal share-holder in our State, regardless of his/her education, wealth, or place of residence.

Respectfully submitted, Joseph A. Hoell, Jr. Secretary, The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition Inc. Dated October 27, 2020 /s/ Joseph A. Hoell, Jr.

Andrew J. Manuse Chairman, ReopenNH /s/ Andrew J. Manuse

Page 10 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this memorandum was filed through the Judicial Branch’s e- filing system.

Date: October 27, 2020 /s/ Joseph A. Hoell, Jr. Joseph A. Hoell, Jr. /s/ Andrew J. Manuse Andrew J. Manuse

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this memorandum contains approximately 3155. I have relied on the word count of the computer program used to prepare this memorandum.

Date: October 27, 2020 /s/ Joseph A. Hoell, Jr. Joseph A. Hoell, Jr.

/s/ Andrew J. Manuse Andrew J. Manuse

Page 11 of 11

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

CASE NO. 2020-0414

Request for an Opinion of the Justices (Quorum under Part II, Article 20)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF MOTION TO STRIKE MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF REPRESENTATIVE LEE OXENHAM

APPENDIX

NH Journal of the Honorable Senate JANUARY SESSION 1919…………….………1-4

NH Journal of the House of Representatives JANUARY SESSION 1919……………5-6

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS MORTALITY STATISTICS 1918……………………………………………………7-10

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS MORTALITY STATISTICS 1919…………………………………………..…..’….11-13

Affidavit of Hon. Karen Wadsworth, NH House Member 1984-1994, NH House Clerk 1994-2014 …………………………………………………….………14

National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza George W. Bush White House …………………………………..………….…….... 15-27

DECLARATION OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO THE 2009 H1N1 INFLUENZA PANDEMIC……………………………………………………………………...…..28-29

Broadband Study Committee (HB 238, Chapter 163, Laws of 2017) Final Report October 19, 2018…………………………………………………….…30-47

CHAPTER 118 SB 170 - FINAL VERSION 2018 Session……………………....…48-52

HB 132-FN - AS INTRODUCED 2019 SESSION ………………………………....53-61

i

JOURNAL

OF THE HONORABLE SENATE JANUARY SESSION, 1919

001 JOURNAL

OF THE HONORABLE SENATE JANUARY SESSION, 1919

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 1, 1919. At 11 o'clock in the forenoon of the first Wednesday of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, being the day prescribed by the constitution for the Legislature of New Hampshire to assemble, the following named persons, elected senators, assembled in the capitol, in the City of Concord, in said state, and His Ex­ cellency, the Honorable Jesse M. Barton, Acting Governor, attended by the Honorable Council, having come into the · Senate chamber, took and subscribed the oaths of office and were duly qualified as senators, agreeably to the provisions of the constitution, namely: District No. 1-Daniel J. Daley. 2-Joseph P. Boucher. 3-Frank N. Keyser. 4-George A. Blanchard. 5-George W. Barnes. 6-Burt S. Dearborn. 7-Guy H. Hubbard. 8-Fred H. Perry. 9-Andrew J. Hook. IO-George H. Eames, Jr. 11-Benjlmin G. Hall. 12-George L. Sadler. 13-William F. Sullivan.

002 4 JOURNAL OF THE SENATE.

District No. 14-Herbert B. Fischer. 15-Arthur P. Morrill. 16-John J. Donahue. 17-Clarence M. Woodbury. 18-Richard H. Horan. 19-Gedeon Lariviere. 20-John L. Meader. 21-Alvah T. Ramsdell. 22-Benjamin T. Bartlett. 23-James A. Tufts. 24-0liver B. Marvin.

His Excellency the Acting Governor and the Honorable Council then withdrawing, the Senate was called to order by Earle C. Gordon, clerk of the Senate of last session. The clerk stated that the first business was the election of a temporary presiding officer. On motion of Senator Morrill, Senator Tufts was chosen temporary presiding officer. The clerk requested Senators Morrill and Barnes to con­ duct the temporary presiding officer to the chair. Senator Tufts, having assumed the chair, the Senate proceeded to the choice of a President by ballot, with the following result: Whole number votes cast...... 22 Necessary for .a choice...... 12 Hon. Daniel J. Daley had ...... 4 Hon. Arthur P. Morrill had...... 18 and the Hon. Arthur P. Morrill, having received a major­ ity of all the votes cast, was declared elected. Senator Daley expressed his appreciation of the com­ plimentary vote given him, and, on motion of the same senator, the election of President Morrill was made unani­ mous. The Chair requested Senators Donahue and Daley to conduct the President to the chair.

003 FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1919. 365

Wescott of Rochester, Ayer of Alton, Blue of Conway, Jaquith of Northfield, Glancy of Manchester, Russell of Swanzey, Tifft of Cornish, Ross of Lebanon, l\foHugh of Gorham. On motion of Senator Hall, the Senate concurred in the foregoing concurrent resolution sent up from the House of Representatives. The President appointed as members of such committee on the part of the Senate, Senators Hall, Keyser, Barnes, Hubbard, Lariviere, Boucher, Blanchard and Horan.

COMMITTEE REPORT. Senator Hall, for the joint select committee appointed to wait upon His Excellency, the Governor, and inform him that the legislature had completed the business of the session and was ready to receive any communication that he might be pleased to make, reported that they had attended to their duty and had been informed by His Excellency that he would, in person, make a communication to the legislature herewith. His Excellency, Honorable John H. Bartlett, attended by the Honorable Council, then appeared and made the fol­ lowing communication to the Senate: To the Honorable Senate: The New Hampshire General Court of 1919 has pre­ sented to me for my consideration 256 bills and 55 joint resolutions, all of which I have signed, with the exception of two, one, House Bill No. 309, which I vetoed and which failed to pass over said veto, and the other, Senate Bill No. 23, from which I have withheld my approval. r:I:his has been a legislature which faced an unusual situa­ tion and extraordinary circumstances. For this reason, I am presuming that you would de:Sire me to review more extensively than otherwise the financial record of this legis­ lature. The legislature of 1917 appropriated for its two fiscal years sums of money which required a regular tax of $800,- 000 each year in addition to a ~~~~~~~~ Mexican War tax.

004 JOURNAL

OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY SESSION. 1919

005 JOURNAL

OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY SESSION. 1919

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 1, 1919. On the first Wednesday in January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, being the day designated by the constitution for the assembling of that body, the one hundred and sixteenth General Court of the State of New Hampshire convened at the capitol, in the City of Concord, and the representatives-elect were called to order by Harrie M. Young, clerk of the House for the preceding session. The clerk proceeded to call the roll and 382 members answering to their names, a quorum was declared present. On motion of Mr. Hodsdon of Ossipee,- Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed by the clerk to wait upon His Excellency the Acting Governor, and inform him that a quorum of the House is assembled and requests his attendance. The clerk appointed Messrs. Hodsdon of Ossipee and Maurice J. Connor of Manchester as such committee. His Excellency the Governor, having been informed that a quorum of the House was assembled, appeared, attended by the Honorable Council, and the following named gentle­ men, having presented their credentials, were duly qualified by His Excellency as members of the House of Representa­ tives by taking and subscribing to the oaths of office agree­ ably to the provisions of the constitution.

006 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsushistorical/mortstatsh_1918.pdf N.B. URL added. The CDC was founded in 1946.

I DEPARTMENT UF COMMERCE 1 BUREAU OF THE CENSUS f . SAM. L. ROGERS, DIRECTOR . I '. . MORF:FALITY STATISTICS

I

L1 ·L . N·NETEENTH ANNUAL REPORT

' ' . j

.1 .

WASHINGTON ~~~ GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE I 1920

~~~~~~~~----·- j 007 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, Washington, D. 0., January 21, 1920. Sm.: I transmit herewith the annual report on Mortality Statistics for 1918, which is the nineteenth annual compilation of such statistics prepared by the Bureau of the Census. It is based on transcripts of death certifi­ cates received from the registration area for deaths, which in 1918 had an estimated population of 82,091,523, or 77.8 per cent of the total estimated population of the United SSSSSSSand the Territory of Hawaii. The total number of .deaths returned from this death registration area for the calendar year 1918, including

26,277 of soldiers, sailors, and marines, was 1,475,320, corresponding to a death rate of 18 per 11000 population, or three SSSSeight-tenths higher than the rate for 1917. The states of Illinois, Louisiana, and Oregon were added to the death registration area in 1918. This report was prepared under the direction of Dr. William H. Davis, chief statistician for vital statistics, assisted by Mr. John B. Mitchell, expert chief of division. Acknowledgment is made of the efficient services rendered in the preparation of this report by Mr. Clyde D. Williams, Mr. Butler Toombs, and Mr. John 0, Spain. Respectfully, SAM. L. ROGERS, Director of the Oensus. Hon. JosHUA W . .ALEXANDER, Secretary of Commerce. (5)

008 CAUSES -OF DEATH. 27 A lower rate is shown in 1918 than in 1917 :for the pandemic mmmmmmmmmmis measured by the excess mor­ registration area and in 20 of the 27 states which tality from influenza and pneumonia (all :forms) or by have comparable rates :for these two years. . the excess mortality from influtinza and diseases of The highest rates among the states are for Michigan the respiratory system. In the former case the excess (21.9), Pennsylvania (20.3), Illinois (18.2), New Jersey rate in 1918 in the registration area (exclusive of (16.8), New York (16.7), and Rhode Island (16). Hawaii) was 416.2 per 100,000, in the latter 415.9. Very low rates are shown :for Oregon (3.6), Washington To permit, however, a separate study of influenza and and Louisiana (each 5.2), Kansas (6.4), and Vermont pneumonia (all forms) separate figures are given in (7.1). the report. INFLUENZA AND PNEUM:ONIA (ALL FORMS). The 477,467 deaths from influenza and pneumonia (all forms) in 1918 correspond to a rate of 583.2 per In 1918 in the registration area (exclusive of Hawaii) 100,000 population as against 125,795 deaths in 1917 477,467 deaths were assigned to influenza and pneu­ and a rate of 167, which, till 1918, was the highest rate monia (all forms). In the latter part of that year a from these causes for any year since 1910. Fully 79.8 pandemic of influenza swept over the country and did per cent of the mortality from these causes in 1918 not fully spend its force until well into 1919. occurred in the last :four months of the year. For In studying the effects of the pandemic of influenza comparison corresponding figures for 1918 and 1915 it is not believed to be best to study separately in­ are shown on page 28 for the registration states of 1915 fluenza and the various forms of pneumonia, bron­ (exclusive of the District of Columbia and North Caro­ chitis, and the respiratory diseases, for doubtless lina) and certain cities, the figures for: 1915 having many cases were returned as influenza when the deaths been taken, as the mortality from these causes during were caused by pneumonia, and vice versa. The best that year seems to have been fairly normal. method therefore seems to be to study as one group Additional data relating to the influenza epidemic deaths from influenza and pneumonia (all forms), dis­ in 1918 in Indiana, Kansas, and Philadelphia will be regarding deaths from the other respiratory diseases, found in special tables of ,mortality from influenza which were comparatively few. In fact it is very re­ a;o.d p;o.eumonia, recently published by the Bureau of markable how little difference it makes whether the the Census.

-¥'

009 34 MORTALITY STATISTICS.

INFLUENZA. ALL OTHER EPIDEMIC DISEASES. The number of deaths from influenza in 1918 ·is In the International List of Causes of Death, titles .. 244,681, corresponding to a rate of 298.9 per 100,000 1 to 19 are assigned to the epidemic diseases, of which population, as against 12,974 deaths in 1917 and a eight have been discussed. Of the others, no deaths rate of 17 .2. The highest rat_e for any year in the are reported in 1918 for relapsing fever, miliary annual mortality reports, the :first of which was fever, Asiatic cholera, plague, and yellow fever. Every published in 1900, was 32.2 for 1901. effort has been made by the Census Bureau to authen­ The following table shows the rates per 100,000 ticate the returns of rare diseases before tabulating population for the years 1911 to 1918 and the annual them under the designated titles; each case has been average for the :five-year period 1906 to 1910, rates made the subject of a special inquiry, and either of 40 and higher being printed in bold-faced type: the existence of the disease has been verified or no

~~ DEATH RATE FROM INFLUENZA PER 100,000 POPULATION. reply has been received; in the latter case there is no . [Rates of 40 or more in bold-faced type.] alternative but to classify the death as. reported. ~~~~ , ~~~ An- In 1918 the 3 deaths reported from typhus fever are AREA. nual aver- distributed as follows: Cecil County, Md., 1; Boston, 1918 1917 1916 1915 1914 1918 1912 1911 age, 1906 Mass., 1; and Albemarle County, Va., 1. to 1910 Twenty-four deaths are reported from leprosy in ------1918: Los Angeles, Calif., 1; San Francisco, Calif., 2; The registration area 1. 298. 9 17.2 26.4 16.0 9.1 12.2 10.3 15. 7 16.4 Registration states 2 297. 9 17.5 27.1 15.8 9.0 12.4 10.1 15. 8 16.5 ~~~~~~~County, Calif., 1; Monterey County, Calif., 1; = = California ...... --.... =324.3 9.4 13. 8 8.3 5. 0 10.3 8. 3 8.4 9. 7 Key West, Fla., 1; Gibson County, Ind., 1; New Or­ Colorado ...... 412.2 14.5 13.l 13. 9 5.3 5.4 7.0 12.3 13. 7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... 441. 0 25.3 $8. 7 18.5 13. 9 16. 7 14. 6 23.5 26.0 leans, La., 2; Iberville Parish, La., 8; Jeff Davis Illinois ...... 253. 2 (') (3) (') (3) (') (') (') (') Indiana.•...... 200. 9 21.4 34.4 17. 0 9.4 14.3 14. 6 18. 3 20.3 Parish, La., 1; Manhattan Borough, New York City, Kansas ...... 235. 6 29.3 39.3 25.6 9. 5 (3) (') (') (') 1; Syracuse, N. Y., 1; Philadelphia, Pa., 3; and Kentucky (total) ...... 321. l 24.4 41. 4 19. 7 14. 7 16. 9 16. 7 17. 8 (3) "White ...... 320. 7 23. 0 40.1 18.1 12. 8 14. 8 15.8 16.0 (') Charleston, S. 0., 1. Colored ...... 324. 8 35. 9 53. 3 32.8 29. 7 32. 9 23. 7 31.5 (') Dysentery is the cause of 4,725 deaths in 1918, cor­ Louisiana (total) ...... 287.0 (') (3) (3) (') (3) ('j (3l White ...... 233. l (3 /'l (3 (') (:'j (') responding to a rate of 5.8 per 100,000 population; Colored ...... 365.4 (') c!l <'j(' <'j(3 (' (3) (' (') Maine ...... 326. 6 30.2 48.9 25.3 12.1 22.8 11.4 25.3 24.3 2 600 deaths are due to erysipelas, with a rate of 3.2 Maryland (total) ••..... 373.3 17.1 25.8 15. l 11.0 14.6 12. 2 16. 6 20.5 ~~~~ 100,000 population; and cholera nostras is the White ...... 363.9 14.9 23.l 13. 7 10. 0 12.9 10. 3 14. 0 18.3 Colored ...... 420. 8 28.2 39.0 21. 6 15. 8 22.2 20. 7 28. 6 30.4 cause of 299 deaths, with a rate of 0.4 per 100,000 Massachusetts ...... 337.0 12.4 18.3 8.5 5. 9 9. 2 6. 9 10. 0 15. 9 Michigan ...... 214.6 17.3 30. 7 17. 5 10.1 11. 5 10.5 18.3 17. 5 population. 249.3 9.5 18.2 10.5 4.8 8.5 3.4 8.5 (<) Under the title "Other epidemic diseases" is in­ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 207.5 23.8 35. 0 21.3 10.3 17. 0 15. 2 25. 9 (3) Montana ...... 551. 4 9.1 12. 6 9.2 5.1 7. 2 4.2 3. 8 (') cluded a miscellaneous collection of diseases, and in New Hampshire ...... 452. l 32.6 35. 0 28.8 17.1 16. 5 13. 8 26.6 27.1 New Jer8ey ...... 301. 0 13. 8 23.2 11. 0 7.3 8. 9 7 2 11. 2 9. 7 1918 the number of deaths charged to these is 581, New York ...... 214. 4 14.4 19 2 12. 9 7. 9 10. 9 8. 0 14. 4 15.1 distributed as follows: German measles, 191; mumps, North Carolina (total). 325.4 16.6 26.4 •19.1 •18.6 •18.4 •20.7 •24.3 (') ~~~~ White ...... 285. 9 16. 7 23. 8 17. 7 15.2 15. 9 14.4 21 9 (') 160; chicken pox, 113; rubella, roseola, 23; Colored ...... 412. 6 16.3 32.0 21. 9 25.2 22.9 32.4 28. 8 (') Ohio ...... 275.1 18.5 31. 7 19.3 10.3 14.2 11. 6 21. 8 (') rotheln, 14; French measles, 10; milk sickness, 8;

Oregon ...... 180.l (3) (') (') (') (3) (3) (3) (') dengue fever, 6; Rocky Mountain spotted fever, 5; Pennsylvania...... 452.0 17.4 30.2 17.4 9.2 12. 3 10.1 14. 7 17. 9 Rhode Island ...... 343.9 20. l 26.5 12.6 8.3 12.9 7. 9 9.5 19.1 Duke's disease and glandular fever, each 4; and fram­ South Carolina (total) .. 379. 6 18. 5 26. 6 (•) (3) (•) (3) (•) (3) White ...... 301. 3 13. 2 23.4 (3) (•) (3) (•) (') (3) besia 1. The 5 deaths from Rocky Mountain spotted Colored ...... 449.0 23.2 29.4 (') (') (') (3) (') (') fever occurred at the following places: Denver, Colo., Tennessee (total) ...... 271. 7 24.5 (') (') (3) (3) White ...... 265.0 23.4 (3l(3 (3) i')•) (') (3('l (3) 1 · Ravalli County, Mont., 1; Manhattan Borough, Colored ...... 337. 8 28.8 (3 (') (3) ('('l (3) (") (3) Utah ...... 313. 5 10.1 15. 2 12. 7 6. 3 11.1 7.1 6.5 (') New York City, 1; and Crook and Deschutes Counties, Vermont...... 381. 2 41. 6 76. 7 31. 7 19. 7 35.3 23. 7 43. 9 39.2 Oreg., each 1. The 6 deaths from dengue fever oc­ Virginia·(total) ...... 424. 0 21.0 33.3 18. 9 12.1 13. 4 (') (') (') White ...... •.. 430. 6 19.2 30. J 17. 3 11.2 12. 6 (3) (') (') curred at the following places: Tampa, Fla., 1; St. Colored ...... 408. 8 25.0 40. 5 22.6 14. 0 15.1 (') (3) (') Washington ...... 191. 9 7.4 14.3 9. 9 3. 8 6.5 4. 7 9.0 (4) James Parish, La., 1; and Houston and San Antonio, Wisconsin ...... 245.6 15.5 29. 9 15. 8 7.1 11.2 8 6 12. 9 (4) Tex., each 2. NOTE.-Populations have been estimated by the arithmetical metho_d. Owing GLANDERS. to recent unusual migrations of the population and to the fact thi:t ~~~~~1s far away from the last ~~~~~~~year, the estimates are probably far too high m some cases and far too low m others. In 1918, as in 1917, only four deaths are reported 'Exclusive of Hawaii. 2 Including the District of Columbia. as due to glanders. The distribution of deaths from a Nat added to registration area until a later date. • Figures for deaths not available for the entire period.. . this cause for each of the yeais 1911 to 1918, inclusive, • Figures relate only to m1micipalitieshaving a populati?n of 1,000 or more ~~~1910. • Figures relate only to municipalities having a population of 1,000 or more m 1900. is shown in the following table:

010 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsushistorical/mortstatsh_1919.pdf N.B. URL added. The CDC was founded in 1946.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS SAM. L. ROGERS, DIRECTOR

MORTALITY STATISTICS. 1919

TWENTIETH ANNUAL REPORT

WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1921

011 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ..

DEPARTMENT OF CoM.MEROE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, WWWWWWWWWWWWD. C., January 29, 1921. Srn: I transmit herewith the annual report on Mortality Statistics for 1919, which is the twentieth annual compilation of such statistics prepared by the Bureau of the Census. It is based on transcripts of death cer­ tificates received from the :registration area for deaths, which, in 1919, had an estimated population of 85,400,437, or 81.2 per cent of the total estimated population of the United States and the territory of Hawaii. The total number of deaths returned from this death registration area for the calendar year 1919 was 1,100,312, corresponding to a death rate of 12.9 per 1,000, population. The states of Delaware, Florida, and Mississippi were added to the death registratfon area m 1919. This report was prepared under the direction of Dr. William. H. Davis, chief statistician f9r vital statistics, assisted by Iv.fr. John B. Mitchell, expert chief of division. Acknowledgment is made of the efficient services rendered m the preparation of this report by Iv.fr. Clyde D. Williams and Iv.fr. John 0. Spain. Respectfully, SAM. L. ROGERS, Director of the Census. Hon. JosHUA W. ALEXANDER, Secretary of Commerce. (5)

012 32 MORTALI'Iry STATISTICS.

INFLUENZA. DEATH RATE FROM INFLUENZA PER 100,000 POPULATION. The llll.ID.ber of deaths from influenza in 1919 is [Rates of 40 or more in bold-faced type.] 84,113, corresponding to a rate of 98.8 per 100,000 AREA. An- population, as against 245,.846 deaths in 1918 and a nual aver- rate of 302.1. The number given for 1918 includes 1919 ffffff1917 1916 1916 1914 1913 1912 1911 1ar o's the "additional deaths" shown 'in the 1918 report. to 1910 The following table shows the rates· per 100,000 ------REGISTRATION C!TIJlS OF - population for the years 1911 to 1919 and the annual 100,000 POPULATION OR MORE IN 1910-contd. average for the five-year period 1906 to 1910, rates Cambridge, Mass ...... 49.4 282.3 7.4 10.2 5.6 5.6 10.3 4.7 7.6 11.6 Fall River, Mass ...... 81.4 469.7 9.2 25.8 1.7 4.2 7.5 2.5 1. 7 10.8 of 40 and higher being printed in bold-faced type: Lowell, Mass ...... 62.4 259.1 2.7 14. 5 3.6 2.8 3.7 5.6 3. 7 11.3 Worcester, Mass ...... 75.3 263. 0 7.0 14.9 6.7 2.5 4.5 . 5;9 6.0 7.9 Detroit, Mich...... 85. 7 153. 3 4. 3 7.6 6.6 2.9 3.0 2.6 3.8 5.9 Grand RaEids, Mich .. -... 22.0 129. 0 1. 5 9.4 4. 0 5. 7 3.3 2.5 4.3 8.6 DEATH RATE FROM INFLUENZA PER 100,000 POPULATION. Miuneapo 's, Minn ...... 77. 8 213. 2 5.8 9.1 6.7 4.2 5.2 2.2 2.2 4.4 St. Pau, Minn ...... 59. 9 297. 6 8.3 10.1 8.9 4. 9 5.0 4.1 5.5 3.7 [Rates of 40 or more in bold-faced type.] Kansas City, Mo ...... 93.9 283.4 12.1 15.8 19.4 7.1 9.9 7.5 22.5 12.6 St. Louis, Mo ...... 39.6 178. 0 22.1 23.3 12.1 9.5 12.6 14. 7 16 .. 2 15.4 Omaha Nebr ...... 49. 5 348. 7 9.3 17. 8 13.5 7.9 5.2 6.1 7.8 14.1 AREA. An- nual Jersey 6ity, N. J ...... 94. 8 219. 3 11.7 14.6 6.7 3.9 4.3 2.5 5.9 6.6 aver- Newark, N. J ...... 45. 5 185. 9 10.8 18.2 6.3 5.8 7.0 9.4 9.3 ·3,5 1919 1918 1917 1916 1910 1914 1918 1912 1911 PatersoniJ'. J ...... 95.3 356. 7 3.8 19. 7 6.1 3.8 9.3 4.7 10.2 . 5.5 t§8li .Albany, . Y ...... 81. 6 342. 2 17.2 34.8 23. 5 13.3 19.2 15.5 25.6 22.5 to Buffalo, N. Y ...... 61. 8 259. 9 7.6 10.1 6.4 2.4 4. 7 3.8 5.5 10.4 1910 New York, N. Y ...... 66. 0 157.6 8.4 10. 3 7.5 4.4 5.6 4.1 7.0 7.9 - - Bronx borough 1 ••• •••• 62.2 158. 3 6. 7 9.3 6.1 5.7 6.6 4.2 6.8 6;3 ------· - - Brooklyn borough 1 • ••• 67. 8 156. 2 9.5 12. 7 9.2 4.8 7.0 5.2 9.1 9.9 SUMMARY. Manhattan borough'··· 68.1 154. 9 8.8 8.6 6.5 3.8 4.3 3.5 5.5 6.8 Queens borough 1 •••••• 52. 0 164. 4 5. 5 10. 7 8.9 4.4 4.6 2.5 5.9 6.4 The registration area 1.. 98. 8 302.1 17.3 26.5 16.0 9.1 12.2 10.3 15. 7 16.4 Richmond borough 1 _ •• 74.3 201.2 2.8 10.5 5.9 2.0 6.3 3.2 14.5 10.6 ------Rochester, N. Y ...... 36.9 228.2 5.2 8.7 5.9 6.0 3.4 4. 7 5.8 8.8 Registration states 2 ...... 98. 5 301. 3 17. 5 27.2 15. 9 9.0 12.4 10. 2 15.8 16.5 Registrationcitiesinnon- Syracuse, N. Y ...... 23.0 268. 0 4.9 10. 7 3.8 4. 6 4. 7 4.8 4.2 9.6 Cmci:nnati, Ohio ...... 19.0 registration states ...... 114.1 338.0 14.2 16.2 18.4 10.8 10. 3 12.9 14.3 15. 7 131. l 311. 8 18.1 27.8 16.3 13.8 13.3 14.6 24.0 ------Cleveland, Ohio ...... 87.3 254.4 11.4 15.4 10.6 3.9 3.9 4. 7 10.5 9.2 REGISTRATION STATES. ------Columbus, Ohio.•.....•.. 94.4 195. l 11.2 33.1 10.9 7.8 8.5 6.2 14.3 9.3 Dayton, Ohio ...... 54. 0 237.0 11.1 17.1 13.2 3.0 8.5 3.2 14.0 12.2 California...... 116.8 309.9 9.0 13.4 8.1 4.8 10.1 8.2 8.4 9.7 Toledo, Ohio ..•••...•.•.• 79.3 206.4 10.6 17.8 15.6 4.0 9.9 6. 5 14.1 16.2 Colorado ..... _...... 129.3 455. 7 15.8 14.2 14. 9 5.6 5.7 7.2 12.5 13. 7 Portland, Ore1; ...... 143.3 266. 6 6.9 13.6 6.0 5. 7 6.8 3.2 8.9 8.9 Connecticut .•••••••••••.. 90.3 423.5 24.4 37.5 18.0 13.6 16.4 14.5 23.3 26.0 fffffffffffff a ...... 46. 6 406. 8 14.2 23.8 20.4 9. 7 9.0 7.9 11.6 14.4 Delaware...••.••.••.•.... 104. 5 (') (') (') (') (') Pittsburgh, a ...... 101. 0 345.2 16.2 27.1 10. 7 6.3 8.5 10.1 11.8 18.4 F,Iorida ...... 92.1 ?)•) (') ('l ('l ('l (') (') (') (' (' (') (" Scranton, Pa ...... 72.8 519. 2 8.1 19.3 9. 7 5.3 8. 3 5.3 11. 5 18.7 Illinois ...... 80.6 258.1 Providence, R. I...... 112. 7 389. 7 16. 7 28.3 11. 2 7.0 9.2 5. 7 7.5 16.3 (') (') (') (') (') (') (') (') Memphis, Tenn ...... Indiana ...... 103. 6 rnB.1 21.1 34.0 16. 9 9.3 14.2 20.3 120.2 293. l 21.3 38.1 18.6 24.0 29.5 26.2 33.6 14.5 18.3 Nashville, Tenn.-...... 128. 9 418.3 24.1 ('l(' 25.3 22.0 17. 7 39.2 35.9 4ll.2 Kansas...... 10!. l 251. 6 31.0 41. 3 26.7 9.8 (') (') (') (') fffffffffffffffffffff 160.3 328.3 24.5 41. 6 19. 7 14.8 16.9 16. 7 17.8 Richmond, Va ...... 115. 7 363 9 17. 6 19. 7 16. 3 18.0 16.1 18.7 17,'6 29.0 119.6 315.5 (') (') (') (') (') (') (') ("('l Seattle, Wash ...... 98. 2 251. 9 4. 7 12.5 7.5 1. 8 5.3 3.1 6.9 4.1 fffffffWash ...... 93. l 270. 5 13. 4 17.3117.3 3. 8 6. 7 5. 7 . 9.6 8.6 Maine ...... 105. 3 334. s 30. 9 49. 8 25. 7 12.2 23.0 11.5 25.3 24.3 · waukee, Wis ...... 45. 2 211. 5 9.8 16. 0 16. 5 3.6 6.2 4.8 3.3 . 8.3 Maryland ...... 85.5 362.5 16. 7 25.2 14. 8 10. 9 14.4 12.1 16.5 20.5 Massachusetts ••.••••••••• 73.9 342.0 12.6 18. 5 8.6 6.0 9.3 7.0 10.1 15. 9 NOTE.-For the years 1911 to 1919 the populations use!'l in computing the rate's ffffffffffffffffffff 83.5 191. 3 15. 5 27.9 16.1 9.5 11.0 10.1 18.0 17. 5 are estimated by the arithmetical method, based on the 1910 and 1920 censuses. 88.0 250.3 9.5 18.2 10.6 4.8 8.5 3.4 8.4 (·•) .All death rates are based on the total deaths i:ncludi:ng deaths of ffffffffffffff deaths in hospitals and insititutions, and deaths of soldiers, sailors, and marines; M!ssissi:ppi. •••..•••••••.. 168.5 (') (') (') (') (') (') (') (') those for 1918 also include the "additional deaths" given i:n the 1918 report. Missoun...... 77.5 212.3 24.l 35.5 21. 5 10.4 17.1 15.2 26.0 ('l Montana.·--············· 127.5 521. 6 8.5 11. 9 8.8 4. 9 6.9 4.1 3.8 fff 1 Exclusive of Hawaii. New Hamp,shire...... 111.4 457.4 33.0 35.3 29.0 17.2 16.6 13.9 26.6 27.1 ' Including the District of Columbia. New Jersey...... 67.8 303.1 13.9 23.4 11.0 7.3 8.9 7.2 11.3 9. 7 'Not added to registration area until a later date. · < Figures for deaths not available for the entire J?eriod. New York..... _...... 67.3 224. 7 14. 9 19.9 13.3 8.1 11.1 8.1 14. 6 15. l • Includes only municipalities having a populat10n of 1,000 or more i:n 1910. North Carolina ..... -..... 149.8 324. 6 6 Includes only municipalities having a population of 1,000 or more in 1900. ' 16.3 26.1 •18.9 '18.4 '18. 0 '20.5 •24.2 7 Ohio ...... 99.3 258,8 17.5 30.2 18.5 10.0 13.9 11.4 21.6 f)•) From 1900 to 1910 all deaths were charged to the boroughs in which they Oregon ..•...•.•••••••••.. 109.2 209.8 (') (•) (') (') (') (') (') (') occurred; begiuning with 1911, deaths were distributed to boroughs of residence. Pennsylvania ••••••••.••. 79.4 464. 7 17.8 30.8 17.8 9.4 12.4 fffff 14. 7 17. 9 • Transcripts for deaths not received. ' Rhode Island ...... 94. 5 368.5 21.4 28.0 13.2 8.6 13.3 8.1 9.6 19. South Carolina .... ··-·"· 189.3 381. 0 18.5 26.7 (') (') (') (') (') Every state has a rate of 40 or more. Those show­ Tennessee._ ••••...•••••.. 132. 8 272.5 24.6 (') (') (') (') (') (3) (8(Bl Utah ...... 180.2 326. 7 10.5 15.6 13.0 6.4 11.3 7.2 6.5 (' ing the highest rates are South Carolina · (189.3), Vermont •••. _••••••••••.• 103.8 395.5 43.0 78.9 32.5 20.0 35.8 23.9 44.2 39. 2 Utah (180.2), Mississippi (168.5), and Virginia (168.2). 168.2 420.2 20.7 32.9 18. 7 12.0 13.3 (') (') Virginiafffffffffff ... ·-············· The lowest rate is shown for New York (67.3)...... 101. 5 240.9 9.1 17.1 11.6 4.4 7.3 5.0 9.4 ('lffff W1sconsm ••• __ ...... 84.3 244. 6 15.3 29.6 15.6 7.0 11.1 8.6 12.8 Among the cities of 100,000 population or more in REGISTRATION CITIES OF 100,000 POPULATION OE 1910, all but four-Grand Rapids, St. Louis, MORE IN 1910. Rochester, and Syracuse-have rates of 40 or more. Birmingham, .Ala .••••••• 125.5 359.3 29.9 14.8 22.2 11.8 8.8 21.6 8.7 (4) Los An!eles, Calif •.••••.• 113.0 290.9 5.8 9.6 4.5 3.5 9.5 7.3 6.3 9. 1 All show decreases for the rate in 1919, as compared Oaklan , Calif ...... 109.9 174.2 6.5 8.8 2. 7 2.8 5,2 1.8 3.8 5. 0 San Francisco, Calif •••..• 161.5 357.5 2.7 4.0 2.1 2.4 4.7 2.5 2.8 4. 8 with the rate for 1918. It is of interest to note that Denver, Colo ...... 77.9 315.5 13.5 11.2 11.4 3.0 2.6 7.2 7.3 12. 1 Grand Rapids has the lowest rate for both years. Bridg:imort, Conn...... 115.6 347.9 12.1 19.5 11.3 5.8 6.9 7.2 12.1 10. 8 New aven, Conn·-·--· .. 87.0 442. 6 11.0 36.8 12.1 6.2 11.2 7.1 21.1 20. 0 ENCEPHALITIS LETHARGICA. Washington, D. C •••••••• 76.6 371.2 21.0 22.0 26.5 16.7 12.3 17.2 19.7 25. 3 Atlanta, Ga ...... 143.2 174.4 11.6 15.2 20.0 17. 7 19.9 18.8 11.8 30. 4 Chicago, DI...... -.... 56.6 213.8 6.0 11.6 9.3 3.9 4.3 6.4 8.0 9. 8 The following table shows that encephalitis lethargies. ffffffffffffInd-•••••••• 89.2 135.2 12.5 16.8 8.8 5.6 9.3 6.8 9.5 16. 7 was returned as a cause of death in 31 of the 33 states Louis · e, KY·-·····-·· .. 105.8 462.6 15.0 34.0 16.0 20.4 14. 8 15.4 13.3 15. 1 New fffffffLa ..... - ••• 149.1 328. 7 29.9 27.0 51.8 31. 7 19.7 26.9 26.7 32. 3 in the registration area and in 8 of the 18 registration fffffffff d. ·····-·--· 56.3 269.6 16.7 20.2 11. 7 8.4 9.7 11.5 12.8 16. 6 Boston, ss •••••• ···-··. 94.8 350.5 4.9 11.7 4.4 3.4 5.4 4.0 4.7 9. 5 cities in nonregistration states in 1919.

,''' I

013 1 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHffiE SUPREME COURT

No. 2020-0414

Request for an Opinion of the Justices (Quorum under Part II, Article 20)

AFFIDAVIT REGARDING THE QUESTION ASKED OF THE COURT REGARDING QUORUM under PART II, ARTICLE 20

As a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives for a ten-year span (1984-1994), and the Clerk of the New Hampshire House of Representatives for a twenty year period (1994-2014), I offer this information regarding the general sessions of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

To the best of my recollection, during my time in both of these offices, there has not been one occurrence where the House needed or wanted to meet offsite due to seasonal influenzas or more severe flu strains (HlNl, 2009 or other emergencies, including several weather storms). The House never once, so far as I am aware, considered any other form of meeting ( electronica or otherwise) despite high death tolls in certain years of flu strains. The House was able to meet as an assembly through all of these events.

Respectfully submitted:

Hon. Karen Wadsworth 9 Betty Ln Bow, NH03304 NH House Member 1984-1994 NH House Clerk 1994-2014

AFFIDAVIT of THE HONORABLE KAREN WADSWORTH

I, Karen Wadsworth on this 26th day of October 2020, hereby swear that the foregoing are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karen Wadsworth STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE COUNTY OF MERRIMACK, SS

On the 26th day of October 2020 before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared to me, or known to be (or satisfactorily proven to be) the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and made oath that the statements subscribed by her are true to the best of her knowledge and belief. Penny Dean, telephonically n _XXXXXX ______Justice of the Peace/NotaryXXXXXXX Public My014 Commission Expires December 18, 2024 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

This is historical material, "frozen in time." The web site is no longer updated and links to external web sites and some internal pages will not work.

November 1, 2005

National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza

President's Letter Introduction The Pandemic Threat The National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Pillars of the National Strategy Implementation of the National Strategy Pillar One: Preparedness and Communication Pillar Two: Surveillance and Detection Full PDF Document (477KB) Pillar Three: Response and Containment Roles and Responsibilities

President's Letter

My fellow Americans,

Once again, nature has presented us with a daunting challenge: the possibility of an influenza pandemic.

Most of us are accustomed to seasonal influenza, or "the flu," a viral infection that continues to be a significant public health challenge. From time to time, changes in the influenza virus result in a new strain to which people have never been exposed. These new strains have the potential to sweep the globe, causing millions of illnesses, in what is called a pandemic.

A new strain of influenza virus has been found in birds in Asia, and has shown that it can infect humans. If this virus undergoes further change, it could very well result in the next human pandemic.

We have an opportunity to prepare ourselves, our Nation, and our world to fight this potentially devastating outbreak of infectious disease.

The National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza presents our approach to address the threat of pandemic influenza, whether it results from the strain currently in birds in Asia or another influenza virus. It outlines how we intend to prepare, detect, and respond to a pandemic. It also outlines the important roles to be played not only by 015 1 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

the Federal government, but also by State and local governments, private industry, our international partners, and most importantly individual citizens, including you and your families.

While your government will do much to prepare for a pandemic, individual action and individual responsibility are necessary for the success of any measures. Not only should you take action to protect yourself and your families, you should also take action to prevent the spread of influenza if you or anyone in your family becomes ill.

Together we will confront this emerging threat and together, as Americans, we will be prepared to protect our families, our communities, this great Nation, and our world.

GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE November 1, 2005

Introduction

Although remarkable advances have been made in science and medicine during the past century, we are constantly reminded that we live in a universe of microbes - viruses, bacteria, protozoa and fungi that are forever changing and adapting themselves to the human host and the defenses that humans create.

Influenza viruses are notable for their resilience and adaptability. While science has been able to develop highly effective vaccines and treatments for many infectious diseases that threaten public health, acquiring these tools is an ongoing challenge with the influenza virus. Changes in the genetic makeup of the virus require us to develop new vaccines on an annual basis and forecast which strains are likely to predominate.

As a result, and despite annual vaccinations, the U.S. faces a burden of influenza that results in approximately 36,000 deaths and more than 200,000 hospitalizations each year. In addition to this human toll, influenza is annually responsible for a total cost of over $10 billion in the U.S.

A pandemic, or worldwide outbreak of a new influenza virus, could dwarf this impact by overwhelming our health and medical capabilities, potentially resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of hospitalizations, and hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and indirect costs. This Strategy will guide our preparedness and response activities to mitigate that impact.

The Pandemic Threat

Pandemics happen when a novel influenza virus emerges that infects and can be efficiently transmitted between humans. Animals are the most likely reservoir for these emerging viruses; avian viruses played a role in the last three influenza pandemics. Two of these pandemic-causing viruses remain in circulation and are responsible for the majority of influenza cases each year.

Pandemics have occurred intermittently over centuries. The last three pandemics, in 016 2 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

1918, 1957 and 1968, killed approximately 40 million, 2 million and 1 million people worldwide, respectively. Although the timing cannot be predicted, history and science suggest that we will face one or more pandemics in this century.

The current pandemic threat stems from an unprecedented outbreak of avian influenza in Asia and Europe, caused by the H5N1 strain of the Influenza A virus. To date, the virus has infected birds in 16 countries and has resulted in the deaths, through illness and culling, of approximately 200 million birds across Asia. While traditional control measures have been attempted, the virus is now endemic in Southeast Asia, present in long-range migratory birds, and unlikely to be eradicated soon.

A notable and worrisome feature of the H5N1 virus is its ability to infect a wide range of hosts, including birds and humans. As of the date of this document, the virus is known to have infected 121 people in four countries, resulting in 62 deaths over the past two years. Although the virus has not yet shown an ability to transmit efficiently between humans, as is seen with the annual influenza virus, there is concern that it will acquire this capability through genetic mutation or exchange of genetic material with a human influenza virus.

It is impossible to know whether the currently circulating H5N1 virus will cause a human pandemic. The widespread nature of H5N1 in birds and the likelihood of mutations over time raise our concerns that the virus will become transmissible between humans, with potentially catastrophic consequences. If this does not happen with the current H5N1 strain, history suggests that a different influenza virus will emerge and result in the next pandemic.

The National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza

Preparing for a pandemic requires the leveraging of all instruments of national power, and coordinated action by all segments of government and society. Influenza viruses do not respect the distinctions of race, sex, age, profession or nationality, and are not constrained by geographic boundaries. The next pandemic is likely to come in waves, each lasting months, and pass through communities of all size across the nation and world. While a pandemic will not damage power lines, banks or computer networks, it will ultimately threaten all critical infrastructure by removing essential personnel from the workplace for weeks or months.

This makes a pandemic a unique circumstance necessitating a strategy that extends well beyond health and medical boundaries, to include the sustainment of critical infrastructure, private-sector activities, the movement of goods and services across the nation and the globe, and economic and security considerations. The uncertainties associated with influenza viruses require that our Strategy be versatile, to ensure that we are prepared for any virus with pandemic potential, as well as the annual burden of influenza that we know we will face.

The National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza guides our preparedness and response to an influenza pandemic, with the intent of (1) stopping, slowing or otherwise limiting the spread of a pandemic to the United States; (2) limiting the domestic spread of a pandemic, and mitigating disease, suffering and death; and (3) sustaining infrastructure and mitigating impact to the economy

017 3 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

and the functioning of society.

The Strategy will provide a framework for future U.S. Government planning efforts that is consistent with The National Security Strategy and the National Strategy for Homeland Security. It recognizes that preparing for and responding to a pandemic cannot be viewed as a purely federal responsibility, and that the nation must have a system of plans at all levels of government and in all sectors outside of government that can be integrated to address the pandemic threat. It is guided by the following principles:

The federal government will use all instruments of national power to address the pandemic threat. States and communities should have credible pandemic preparedness plans to respond to an outbreak within their jurisdictions. The private sector should play an integral role in preparedness before a pandemic begins, and should be part of the national response. Individual citizens should be prepared for an influenza pandemic, and be educated about individual responsibility to limit the spread of infection if they or their family members become ill. Global partnerships will be leveraged to address the pandemic threat.

Pillars of the National Strategy

Our Strategy addresses the full spectrum of events that link a farmyard overseas to a living room in America. While the circumstances that connect these environments are very different, our strategic principles remain relevant. The pillars of our Strategy are:

Preparedness and Communication: Activities that should be undertaken before a pandemic to ensure preparedness, and the communication of roles and responsibilities to all levels of government, segments of society and individuals. Surveillance and Detection: Domestic and international systems that provide continuous “situational awareness,” to ensure the earliest warning possible to protect the population. Response and Containment: Actions to limit the spread of the outbreak and to mitigate the health, social and economic impacts of a pandemic.

Implementation of the National Strategy

This Strategy reflects the federal government’s approach to the pandemic threat. While it provides strategic direction for the Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government, it does not attempt to catalogue and assign all federal responsibilities. The implementation of this Strategy and specific responsibilities will be described separately.

Pillar One: Preparedness and Communication

Preparedness is the underpinning of the entire spectrum of activities, including surveillance, detection, containment and response efforts. We will support pandemic planning efforts, and clearly communicate expectations to individuals, communities and governments, whether overseas or in the United States, recognizing that all 018 4 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

share the responsibility to limit the spread of infection in order to protect populations beyond their borders.

Planning for a Pandemic

To enhance preparedness, we will:

Develop federal implementation plans to support this Strategy, to include all components of the U.S. government and to address the full range of consequences of a pandemic, including human and animal health, security, transportation, economic, trade and infrastructure considerations. Work through multilateral health organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and regional organizations such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, as well as through bilateral and multilateral contacts to: Support the development and exercising of avian and pandemic response plans; Expand in-country medical, veterinary and scientific capacity to respond to an outbreak; and Educate populations at home and abroad about high-risk practices that increase the likelihood of virus transmission between species. Continue to work with states and localities to: Establish and exercise pandemic response plans; Develop medical and veterinary surge capacity plans; and Integrate non-health sectors, including the private sector and critical infrastructure entities, in these planning efforts. Build upon existing domestic mechanisms to rapidly recruit and deploy large numbers of health, medical and veterinary providers within or across jurisdictions to match medical requirements with capabilities.

Communicating Expectations and Responsibilities

A critical element of pandemic planning is ensuring that people and entities not accustomed to responding to health crises understand the actions and priorities required to prepare for and respond to a pandemic. Those groups include political leadership at all levels of government, non-health components of government and members of the private sector. Essential planning also includes the coordination of efforts between human and animal health authorities. In order to accomplish this, we will:

Work to ensure clear, effective and coordinated risk communication, domestically and internationally, before and during a pandemic. This includes identifying credible spokespersons at all levels of government to effectively coordinate and communicate helpful, informative messages in a timely manner. Provide guidance to the private sector and critical infrastructure entities on their role in the pandemic response, and considerations necessary to maintain essential services and operations despite significant and sustained worker absenteeism. Provide guidance to individuals on infection control behaviors they should

019 5 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

adopt pre-pandemic, and the specific actions they will need to take during a severe influenza season or pandemic, such as self-isolation and protection of others if they themselves contract influenza. Provide guidance and support to poultry, swine and related industries on their role in responding to an outbreak of avian influenza, including ensuring the protection of animal workers and initiating or strengthening public education campaigns to minimize the risks of infection from animal products.

Producing and Stockpiling Vaccines, Antivirals and Medical Material

In combination with traditional public health measures, vaccines and antiviral drugs form the foundation of our infection control strategy. Vaccination is the most important element of this strategy, but we acknowledge that a two-pronged strategy incorporating both vaccines and antivirals is essential. To establish production capacity and stockpiles in support of our containment and response strategies, we will:

Encourage nations to develop production capacity and stockpiles to support their response needs, to include pooling of efforts to create regional capacity. Encourage and subsidize the development of state-based antiviral stockpiles to support response activities. Ensure that our national stockpile and stockpiles based in states and communities are properly configured to respond to the diversity of medical requirements presented by a pandemic, including personal protective equipment, antibiotics and general supplies. Establish domestic production capacity and stockpiles of countermeasures to ensure: Sufficient vaccine to vaccinate front-line personnel and at-risk populations, including military personnel; Sufficient vaccine to vaccinate the entire U.S. population within six months of the emergence of a virus with pandemic potential; and Antiviral treatment for those who contract a pandemic strain of influenza. Facilitate appropriate coordination of efforts across the vaccine manufacturing sector. Address regulatory and other legal barriers to the expansion of our domestic vaccine production capacity. Expand the public health recommendations for domestic seasonal influenza vaccination and encourage the same practice internationally. Expand the domestic supply of avian influenza vaccine to control a domestic outbreak of avian influenza in bird populations.

Establishing Distribution Plans for Vaccines and Antivirals

It is essential that we prioritize the allocation of countermeasures (vaccines and antivirals) that are in limited supply and define effective distribution modalities during a pandemic. We will:

Develop credible countermeasure distribution mechanisms for vaccine and antiviral agents prior to and during a pandemic. Prioritize countermeasure allocation before an outbreak, and update this prioritization immediately after the outbreak begins based on the at-risk

020 6 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

populations, available supplies and the characteristics of the virus.

Advancing Scientific Knowledge and Accelerating Development

Research and development of vaccines, antivirals, adjuvants and diagnostics represents our best defense against a pandemic. To realize our goal of next- generation countermeasures against influenza, we must make significant and targeted investments in promising technologies. We will:

Ensure that there is maximal sharing of scientific information about influenza viruses between governments, scientific entities and the private sector. Work with our international partners to ensure that we are all leveraging the most advanced technological approaches available for vaccine production. Accelerate the development of cell culture technology for influenza vaccine production and establish a domestic production base to support vaccination demands. Use novel investment strategies to advance the development of next- generation influenza diagnostics and countermeasures, including new antivirals, vaccines, adjuvant technologies, and countermeasures that provide protection across multiple strains and seasons of the influenza virus.

Pillar Two: Surveillance and Detection

Early warning of a pandemic and our ability to closely track the spread of avian influenza outbreak is critical to being able to rapidly employ resources to contain the spread of the virus. An effective surveillance and detection system will save lives by allowing us to activate our response plans before the arrival of a pandemic virus to the U.S., activate additional surveillance systems and initiate vaccine production and administration.

Ensuring Rapid Reporting of Outbreaks

To support our need for “situational awareness,” both domestically and internationally, we will:

Work through the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza, as well as through other political and diplomatic channels such as the United Nations and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, to ensure transparency, scientific cooperation and rapid reporting of avian and human influenza cases. Support the development of the proper scientific and epidemiologic expertise in affected regions to ensure early recognition of changes in the pattern of avian or human outbreaks. Support the development and sustainment of sufficient U.S. and host nation laboratory capacity and diagnostic reagents in affected regions and domestically, to provide rapid confirmation of cases in animals or humans. Advance mechanisms for “real-time” clinical surveillance in domestic acute care settings such as emergency departments, intensive care units and laboratories to provide local, state and federal public health officials with continuous awareness of the profile of illness in communities, and leverage all federal medical capabilities, both domestic and international, in support of this objective. 021 7 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

Develop and deploy rapid diagnostics with greater sensitivity and reproducibility to allow onsite diagnosis of pandemic strains of influenza at home and abroad, in animals and humans, to facilitate early warning, outbreak control and targeting of antiviral therapy. Expand our domestic livestock and wildlife surveillance activities to ensure early warning of the spread of an outbreak to our shores.

Using Surveillance to Limit Spread

Although influenza does not respect geographic or political borders, entry to and egress from affected areas represent opportunities to control or at the very least slow the spread of infection. In parallel to our containment measures, we will:

Develop mechanisms to rapidly share information on travelers who may be carrying or may have been exposed to a pandemic strain of influenza, for the purposes of contact tracing and outbreak investigation. Develop and exercise mechanisms to provide active and passive surveillance during an outbreak, both within and beyond our borders. Expand and enhance mechanisms for screening and monitoring animals that may harbor viruses with pandemic potential. Develop screening and monitoring mechanisms and agreements to appropriately control travel and shipping of potentially infected products to and from affected regions if necessary, and to protect unaffected populations.

Pillar Three: Response and Containment

We recognize that a virus with pandemic potential anywhere represents a risk to populations everywhere. Once health authorities have signaled sustained and efficient human-to-human spread of the virus has occurred, a cascade of response mechanisms will be initiated, from the site of the documented transmission to locations around the globe.

Containing Outbreaks

The most effective way to protect the American population is to contain an outbreak beyond the borders of the U.S. While we work to prevent a pandemic from reaching our shores, we recognize that slowing or limiting the spread of the outbreak is a more realistic outcome and can save many lives. In support of our containment strategy, we will:

Work through the International Partnership to develop a coalition of strong partners to coordinate actions to limit the spread of a virus with pandemic potential beyond the location where it is first recognized in order to protect U.S. interests abroad. Where appropriate, offer and coordinate assistance from the United States and other members of the International Partnership. Encourage all levels of government, domestically and globally, to take appropriate and lawful action to contain an outbreak within the borders of their community, province, state or nation. Where appropriate, use governmental authorities to limit non-essential movement of people, goods and services into and out of areas where an outbreak occurs. 022 8 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

Provide guidance to all levels of government on the range of options for infection-control and containment, including those circumstances where social distancing measures, limitations on gatherings, or quarantine authority may be an appropriate public health intervention. Emphasize the roles and responsibilities of the individual in preventing the spread of an outbreak, and the risk to others if infection-control practices are not followed. Provide guidance for states, localities and industry on best practices to prevent the spread of avian influenza in commercial, domestic and wild birds, and other animals.

Leveraging National Medical and Public Health Surge Capacity

Rather than generating a focal point of casualties, the medical burden of a pandemic is likely to be distributed in communities across the nation for an extended period of time. In order to save lives and limit suffering, we will:

Implement state and local public health and medical surge plans, and leverage all federal medical facilities, personnel and response capabilities to support the national surge requirement. Activate plans to distribute medical countermeasures, including non-medical equipment and other material, from the Strategic National Stockpile and other distribution centers to federal, state and local authorities. Address barriers to the flow of public health, medical and veterinary personnel across state and local jurisdictions to meet local shortfalls in public health, medical and veterinary capacity. Determine the spectrum of public health, medical and veterinary surge capacity activities that the U.S. military and other government entities may be able to support during a pandemic, contingent upon primary mission requirements, and develop mechanisms to activate them.

Sustaining Infrastructure, Essential Services and the Economy

Movement of essential personnel, goods and services, and maintenance of critical infrastructure are necessary during an event that spans months in any given community. The private sector and critical infrastructure entities must respond in a manner that allows them to maintain the essential elements of their operations for a prolonged period of time, in order to prevent severe disruption of life in our communities. To ensure this, we will:

Encourage the development of coordination mechanisms across American industries to support the above activities during a pandemic. Provide guidance to activate contingency plans to ensure that personnel are protected, that the delivery of essential goods and services is maintained, and that sectors remain functional despite significant and sustained worker absenteeism. Determine the spectrum of infrastructure-sustainment activities that the U.S. military and other government entities may be able to support during a pandemic, contingent upon primary mission requirements, and develop mechanisms to activate them.

023 9 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

Ensuring Effective Risk Communication

Effective risk communication is essential to inform the public and mitigate panic. We will:

Ensure that timely, clear, coordinated messages are delivered to the American public from trained spokespersons at all levels of government and assist the governments of affected nations to do the same. Work with state and local governments to develop guidelines to assure the public of the safety of the food supply and mitigate the risk of exposure from wildlife.

Roles and Responsibilities

Because of its unique nature, responsibility for preparedness and response to a pandemic extends across all levels of government and all segments of society. No single entity alone can prevent or mitigate the impact of a pandemic.

The Federal Government

While the Federal government plays a critical role in elements of preparedness and response to a pandemic, the success of these measures is predicated on actions taken at the individual level and in states and communities. Federal responsibilities include the following:

Advancing international preparedness, surveillance, response and containment activities. Supporting the establishment of countermeasure stockpiles and production capacity by: Facilitating the development of sufficient domestic production capacity for vaccines, antivirals, diagnostics and personal protective equipment to support domestic needs, and encouraging the development of production capacity around the world; Advancing the science necessary to produce effective vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics; and Stockpiling and coordinating the distribution of necessary countermeasures, in concert with states and other entities. Ensuring that federal departments and agencies, including federal health care systems, have developed and exercised preparedness and response plans that take into account the potential impact of a pandemic on the federal workforce, and are configured to support state, local and private sector efforts as appropriate. Facilitating state and local planning through funding and guidance. Providing guidance to the private sector and public on preparedness and response planning, in conjunction with states and communities.

Lead departments have been identified for the medical response (Department of Health and Human Services), veterinary response (Department of Agriculture), international activities (Department of State) and the overall domestic incident management and Federal coordination (Department of Homeland Security). Each department is responsible for coordination of all efforts within its authorized mission, 024 10 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

and departments are responsible for developing plans to implement this Strategy.

States and Localities

Our communities are on the front lines of a pandemic and will face many challenges in maintaining continuity of society in the face of widespread illness and increased demand on most essential government services. State and local responsibilities include the following:

Ensuring that all reasonable measures are taken to limit the spread of an outbreak within and beyond the community’s borders. Establishing comprehensive and credible preparedness and response plans that are exercised on a regular basis. Integrating non-health entities in the planning for a pandemic, including law enforcement, utilities, city services and political leadership. Establishing state and community-based stockpiles and distribution systems to support a comprehensive pandemic response. Identifying key spokespersons for the community, ensuring that they are educated in risk communication, and have coordinated crisis communications plans. Providing public education campaigns on pandemic influenza and public and private interventions.

The Private Sector and Critical Infrastructure Entities

The private sector represents an essential pillar of our society because of the essential goods and services that it provides. Moreover, it touches the majority of our population on a daily basis, through an employer-employee or vendor-customer relationship. For these reasons, it is essential that the U.S. private sector be engaged in all preparedness and response activities for a pandemic.

Critical infrastructure entities also must be engaged in planning for a pandemic because of our society’s dependence upon their services. Both the private sector and critical infrastructure entities represent essential underpinnings for the functioning of American society. Responsibilities of the U.S. private sector and critical infrastructure entities include the following:

Establishing an ethic of infection control in the workplace that is reinforced during the annual influenza season, to include, if possible, options for working offsite while ill, systems to reduce infection transmission, and worker education. Establishing contingency systems to maintain delivery of essential goods and services during times of significant and sustained worker absenteeism. Where possible, establishing mechanisms to allow workers to provide services from home if public health officials advise against non-essential travel outside the home. Establishing partnerships with other members of the sector to provide mutual support and maintenance of essential services during a pandemic.

Individuals and Families

The critical role of individuals and families in controlling a pandemic cannot be 025 11 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

overstated. Modeling of the transmission of influenza vividly illustrates the impact of one individual’s behavior on the spread of disease, by showing that an infection carried by one person can be transmitted to tens or hundreds of others. For this reason, individual action is perhaps the most important element of pandemic preparedness and response.

Education on pandemic preparedness for the population should begin before a pandemic, should be provided by all levels of government and the private sector, and should occur in the context of preventing the transmission of any infection, such as the annual influenza or the common cold. Responsibilities of the individual and families include:

Taking precautions to prevent the spread of infection to others if an individual or a family member has symptoms of influenza. Being prepared to follow public health guidance that may include limitation of attendance at public gatherings and non-essential travel for several days or weeks. Keeping supplies of materials at home, as recommended by authorities, to support essential needs of the household for several days if necessary.

International Partners

We rely upon our international partnerships, with the United Nations, international organizations and private non-profit organizations, to amplify our efforts, and will engage them on a multilateral and bilateral basis. Our international effort to contain and mitigate the effects of an outbreak of pandemic influenza is a central component of our overall strategy. In many ways, the character and quality of the U.S. response and that of our international partners may play a determining role in the severity of a pandemic.

The International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza stands in support of multinational organizations. Members of the Partnership have agreed that the following 10 principles will guide their efforts:

1. International cooperation to protect the lives and health of our people; 2. Timely and sustained high-level global political leadership to combat avian and pandemic influenza; 3. Transparency in reporting of influenza cases in humans and in animals caused by virus strains that have pandemic potential, to increase understanding and preparedness and especially to ensure rapid and timely response to potential outbreaks; 4. Immediate sharing of epidemiological data and samples with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the international community to detect and characterize the nature and evolution of any outbreaks as quickly as possible, by utilizing, where appropriate, existing networks and mechanisms; 5. Rapid reaction to address the first signs of accelerated transmission of H5N1 and other highly pathogenic influenza strains so that appropriate international and national resources can be brought to bear; 6. Prevent and contain an incipient epidemic through capacity building and in- country collaboration with international partners; 7. Work in a manner complementary to and supportive of expanded cooperation

026 12 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...

with and appropriate support of key multilateral organizations (including the WHO, Food and Agriculture Organization and World Organization for Animal Health); 8. Timely coordination of bilateral and multilateral resource allocations; dedication of domestic resources (human and financial); improvements in public awareness; and development of economic and trade contingency plans; 9. Increased coordination and harmonization of preparedness, prevention, response and containment activities among nations, complementing domestic and regional preparedness initiatives, and encouraging where appropriate the development of strategic regional initiatives; and 10. Actions based on the best available science.

Through the Partnership and other bilateral and multilateral initiatives, we will promote these principles and support the development of an international capacity to prepare, detect and respond to an influenza pandemic.

027 13 of 13 25-Oct-20, 11:54 Declaration of a National Emergency with Respect to the 2009 H... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the-press-offic...

This is historical material “frozen in time”. The website is no longer updated and links to external webs

BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION

Home • Briefing Room • Presidential Actions • Proclamations

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary ______For Immediate Release October 24, 2009

DECLARATION OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO THE 2009 H1N1 INFLUENZA PANDEMIC

------

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION

On April 26, 2009, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the "Secretary") first declared a public health emergency under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act,42 U.S.C. 247d, in response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus. The Secretary has renewed that declaration twice, on July 24,2009, and October 1, 2009. In addition, by rapidly identifying the virus, implementing public health measures, providing guidance for health professionals and the general public, and developing an effective vaccine, we have taken proactive steps to reduce the impact of the pandemic and protect the health of our citizens. As a Nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communities, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic. Nevertheless, the 2009 H1N1 pandemic continues to evolve. The rates of illness continue to rise rapidly within many communities across the Nation, and the potential exists for the pandemic to overburden health care resources in some localities.Thus, in recognition of the continuing progression of the pandemic, and in further preparation as a Nation, we are taking additional steps to facilitate our response.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States,including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and consistent with section 1135 of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5), do hereby find and proclaim that, given that

028 1 of 2 25-Oct-20, 11:58 Declaration of a National Emergency with Respect to the 2009 H... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the-press-offic...

the rapid increase in illness across the Nation may overburden health care resources and that the temporary waiver of certain standard Federal requirements may be warranted in order to enable U.S. health care facilities to implement emergency operations plans, the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States constitutes a national emergency. Accordingly, I hereby declare that the Secretary may exercise the authority under section 1135 of the SSA to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance programs and of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule throughout the duration of the public health emergency declared in response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. In exercising this authority, the Secretary shall provide certification and advance written notice to the Congress as required by section 1135(d) of the SSA (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(d)).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA # # #

029 2 of 2 25-Oct-20, 11:58

Broadband Study Committee (HB 238, Chapter 163, Laws of 2017)

Final Report

October 19, 2018

030 Committee to Study Broadband Access to the Internet (HB 238, Chapter 163, Laws of 2017)

Membership

Representative Richard W. Barry (Chair) Senator Ruth Ward Representative Michael Vose Representative Carol R. Roberts 1

In 2017 the Legislature passed HB 238, establishing a committee to study broadband access to the Internet, which established this legislative study committee. The committee is composed of three members of the House of Representatives and one member of the Senate. The charge of the committee is to explore opportunities to increase broadband availability in unserved and underserved areas of the state, explore means to expand the adoption of wireless and wired broadband technologies into rural areas with low adoption rates, and solicit information from industry, non- profits, bonding experts, state agencies, and the University of New Hampshire.

The final report consists of three sections: an Executive Summary, the Committee Recommendations, and a Summary of Presentations and Other Input to the Committee. The committee’s 2017 interim report, agendas, detailed presentations, along with other documents can be found on the committee’s webpage.2 This report is not all inclusive, but highlights the largest New Hampshire providers and their continuing investment in workforce, community, and policy surrounding infrastructure development and expansion.

Executive Summary

At the committee’s organizational meeting, Carol Miller, Director of Broadband Technology in the newly formed Department of Business and Economic Affairs, was tasked with scheduling, facilitating, and determining the content of subsequent meetings and also preparing the final report. Six meetings were held that looked at the history of broadband, the Public Utilities Commission and its jurisdiction, broadband initiatives at the University of New Hampshire, the telecommunications and cable industry, state and federal funding resources, business models for deployment, legislation, testimony and opinions from the NH Municipal Association, towns, and active residents, and lastly, any follow up needed to clarify current statute. The opportunity and the challenge was to come up with recommendations for actionable legislation to remove barriers to expansion efforts across the state.

Today competitive options and multiple technologies are available in highly populated areas in cities and towns. Although we have made steady strides to bring availability to many rural areas of the

1 Rep. Carol Roberts fully participated in the study, but resigned from the House of Representatives on June 5, 2018 and so was no longer a committee member when this report was subsequently approved and issued. See her written comments on page 4. 2 Committee’s webpage: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1362/default.html

031 state, there remain gaps in coverage and areas which need investment of infrastructure and resources. Regardless of location, there are stranded neighborhoods and developments that for one reason or another are just outside the reach of an available technology that could provide high speed broadband. There is a growing impatience from the rural business and residential markets who want better broadband to support the need for speed to stream entertainment content such as NetFlix, and to serve the growing IoT (Internet of Things) devices that have become the norm. Heating boilers, refrigerators, medical devices, and even cars these days are manufactured to connect to the Internet.

There are more than 70 industry providers in NH. Many are resellers and sector based providers serving vertical industry clusters with broadband, VoIP, and cloud services. The providers may be wired facilities based telephone and cable companies or fixed wireless, mobile wireless and resellers offering high speed gigabit capacity and innovative customer services.

The landscape of broadband availability and speed connectivity in NH continues to be a challenge based on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) definition of broadband. Benchmark speeds changed from 768Kbps by 200Kbps (download/upload) in 2010 to 4Mbps by 1Mbps in 2013, and most recently in 2015 to 25Mbps by 3Mbps. Based on the latest FCC 477 data and 2010 census data, 94,000 residents (7.2% of the total population of 1,316,470) do not have access to broadband. These increasing bandwidth changes highlight the ever changing need for infrastructure investment in fiber assets. The long-term scalability of fiber and higher speeds is needed to take advantage of the internet resources and opportunities for residents and businesses. Telehealth, education, public safety, government, and economic development initiatives depend on it. These improvements are critical to maintain and increase NH’s economic development competitiveness in the national and global marketplace.

A robust communication infrastructure and industry competition will continue to improve availability, affordability, and adoption of broadband over time. We need to be proactive in helping to pave the way.

Committee Recommendations

Based on the input from the various stakeholders who participated in this study and subsequent deliberations by committee members, the committee recommends that legislation be filed to redefine the duties of the Telecommunications Oversight Committee (RSA 374:22-h) to focus on the availability and adoption of broadband throughout the state. In this regard, it would:

1) Monitor the progress made by SB 170, relative to the authority of towns to issue bonds for the expansion of broadband infrastructure, which was passed last session to facilitate the provision of broadband in unserved areas of municipalities;

2) Work to increase the number of schools taking advantage of the federal E-rate program that provides discounts to eligible schools for telecommunications services, including internet access; and

3) Identify a suitable contact within state government that can serve as a clearinghouse for questions that the public or municipalities may have concerning broadband. Possible candidates should include the Office of Strategic Initiatives.

2 032 Summary of Presentations and Other Input to the Committee

Broadband History in New Hampshire (Carol Miller/Division of Economic Development and Michael Ladam/Public Utilities Commission)

The Division of Economic Development (DED) along with federal, state, local, academic, and private partners began engaging in a wide array of activities to encourage and develop high speed internet access throughout the state. What began as Telecommunications Round Tables in 1998 to address the benefits of internet access and its impact on economic development resulted in continued efforts surrounding the availability and affordability of connectivity and resulted in initial legislation that continues today.

In 2000 legislation was passed creating the Telecommunications Planning and Development Advisory Committee (TAB), and a Telecom Fund Account, followed by legislation in 2009 that created the position of Director of Broadband Technology. Regional forums contributed to a structure of 25 action items that the committee would focus on through sub-committee work regarding legislative, governmental, supply, demand, and regulatory issues surrounding the availability and adoption of internet access.

It was this committee’s work that prepared New Hampshire for participation in federal opportunities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) that funded several broadband initiatives. A leadership “point person” was brought on at DED in late 2009 funded initially through the Office of Economic Stimulus. The position, Director of Broadband Technologies, was grant funded for 5 years to work with the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) Infrastructure Project and the NH Mapping and Planning Program. After the grant period, the position then became part of the state budget at DED.

The TAB established the Telecom Fund and awarded $145,000 in small grants to 16 organizations in NH in 2007. In 2015 the Telecom Fund was the recipient of penalties assessed to an incumbent provider for not meeting its wholesale market metrics. In addition, the TAB funded, in partnership with the University of New Hampshire (UNH), the School Connectivity Data Collection in 2016 and the Broadband Business Survey in late 2017. The data collection study was conducted to increase fiber connectivity to the schools and the survey measured the availability, affordability, and satisfaction of business customers with broadband services.

In July 2017 the TAB and the position were repealed in a sweeping reorganization and breakup of the Department of Resources and Economic Development. Work surrounding broadband continues at DED in the Department of Business and Economic Affairs (DBEA) in an advocacy role for cities, towns, and constituents in need of service.

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) provided an update on regulatory jurisdictional authority with regards to telecommunications and observations on competition and the broadband market. The PUC jurisdiction applies to traditional telephone service, vegetation control and access to utility poles, and provider eligibility for the FCC’s Connect America Funds. The PUC has no jurisdiction over broadband availability, speed, pricing, emergency communications, application services, voice over IP, or cellular 3 033 service.

Observations of the broadband market identified two distinct markets: business and residential customers. While the business market is more competitive with higher monthly rates, the residential markets were targeted only by the local telephone companies and cable companies. Residential customers were more apt to be dissatisfied with service options while market forces were better at meeting the needs of the business customers. More competition in the residential markets is not a regulatory barrier, but an economic barrier. Return on investment in the rural residential markets do not make it profitable to expand broadband services.

The PUC is currently rewriting its Telephone Rules. Technical sessions and hearings will be helpful in preparation for the adoption of the final rules. Some of the challenges that will be addressed are pole attachments, 3rd party attacher’s behavior, and wireless technology access to poles. Once consensus is reached the rules will go to the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR) for final adoption.

Letter Submitted by Committee Member Representative Carol R Roberts, June 5, 2018

Study committee members;

Representative Richard W. Barry (Chair) Representative Carol R. Roberts Representative Michael Vose Senator Ruth Ward

Thanks to Carol Miller, Director of Broadband Technology, Division of Economic Development, Department of Business and Economic Affairs, State of New Hampshire Ms. Miller contacted the stakeholders; the education community; community leaders; and local, regional, and national officials whether public or private entities. She also compiled the presentations on the committee’s website and managed the meetings of the study committee. In addition, the committee received many responses from actual users both private and public throughout the state. Meetings were held roughly once a month beginning in October, 2017. The last meeting of the study committee will be on June 8, 2018.

Near the end of the time of this Study, Governor Sununu signed Senate Bill 170 into law. This bill will go a long way to improving matters in the state but the work is not done.

Information gathered from the Broadband Study (HB238) hearings - I offer the following comments as my input to the final report.

Responses from private citizens, town/city officials, business members, and the education community weighed in with their concerns about broadband access and in NH. Recurring themes:

 The State needs to realize that the need for reliable high speed access to the Internet is not a frivolous issue. Erratic service throughout the state creates hardship for our citizens. The

4 034 unserved population, as defined by the federal government, are those homes with less than 25/3. Home sales suffer as potential buyers determine whether their home has real value in the digital age. Workforce of all ages will not stay in the state or come to the state that has such blatant disregard for equal access to many kinds of services.

 All age groups see this issue as well as other issues such as lack of workforce housing; reasonable wages; public transportation and so on as indicators of the regard for the worker. Why would one come to such a hostile environment?

 Business models block free market activity. Presently, the companies are allowed to ‘own a territory’. They have sole rights to serve a town. They can choose not to serve areas of the town due to expense – ‘not enough people on that road to justify the installation of the equipment’. The kicker is that just down the road in another town, internet access may be noticeably better or worse.

 Companies have enjoyed a tax break since at least 2012. Around that time, the internet portion of the communications services tax to supply around $40 million in matching funds for the town side of public-private partnerships the internet portion of the service was put in place.

 Our constituents know the problem is economics and politics. Vendors will not go the extra mile to provide equal service because they say it ‘costs too much’ – that is totally unacceptable and the word hostage is not an overstatement. The people know this and wonder why it can’t be fixed. Companies have been allowed to continue this practice. They create a rural and urban ghetto by not allowing access due to their own financial interest.

 This will not change until the Legislature gets involved with new guidelines . The vendors and the PUC are instrumental to fixing the problem and we need them on board.

 The vendors control the future of our state. A common remark that we hear from the public is: “We are killing our towns” - meant to describe the lack of service and a faulty business model held by the providers.

 It is well known throughout the state that there are many ‘have not’ communities. This is not good public relations. One area favored over another due to geographic issues or economic issues or whatever they may be does NOT go unnoticed. The economic future of many of our towns is at stake. Companies have told town officials that NH does not provide many services that draw people to state and encourage them to stay. Equal access to high speed broadband is one of these items.

 One representative testified that his constituents have poor or no access because the company which has the rights to that town adheres to the pervasive business model that allows them todiscriminate: ‘it costs too much to serve a sparsely populated area’. Again, we are killing our small towns. Suggested points for enabling legislation:

 If vendors control internet access to a given town, they must serve each address not matter how remote (think REA of the 1930s) and not use census blocks as a guide. If they serve one area

5 035 they must provide equal access to all.

 Ensure that the PUC allows access to their poles in a timely way. o The utilities hold some of the keys to successful change here – the Legislature needs to direct them

 Review tax breaks that are currently in statute or that could be revived. Attached here is Jeanne Dietsch’s (Peterborough economic development team) commentary on tax breaks presently in place: Jeanne Dietsch writes : ‘… will be very interested to see the recommendations that come out of the Broadband Study Committee, to see whether they support reinstating the Internet portion of the communications services tax to supply around $40 million in matching funds for the town side of public-private partnerships under SB170.’

And Ms. Dietsch includes this information from NH Fiscal Policy Institute’s Phil Sletten:

“I cannot tell you definitely what portion of the revenue decline is due to removing internet services from the tax base. However, the tax was changed in SFY 2012 to exempt internet services explicitly, whereas some (but not all) were included before. In SFY 2011, the Communications Services Tax brought in $76.6 million, dropping to $57.4 million in SFY 2013 and $47.1 million in SFY 2017. It is likely to be lower this year, as the plan for this year is $44.0 million, relative to a high of $81.0 million in SFY 2010. We are, thus far this year, below plan on Communications Services Tax revenue. Notably, there are no inflation adjustments on the above dollar figures.”

Most of those testifying see the internet as a utility – as a right not a privilege. Quoting Jo Anne Carr, Director of Economic Development in Jaffrey, NH: “ …Our current tax structure in NH pits one town against their neighbors in the race for economic development, the lack of broadband and the effort to provide service ….... promotes competition amongst neighboring communities..’

I would further observe that Ms. Carr’s concluding statement may be instructive to the committee: ‘…. perhaps a State directed effort to promote equity would be productive…’.

Respectfully submitted, Carol R. Roberts, Representative Hillsborough County

Broadband Initiatives (Brian Shepperd/UNH and Fay Rubin/Granit at UNH)

The University of New Hampshire (UNH) has a long history as a leader in the field of building and managing educational networks not only for itself, but for the entire University System of New Hampshire. They have been partners in many broadband initiatives that promote economic development.

In 2010 UNH was awarded $44.5 million for broadband infrastructure by the National

6 036 Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The industry reaction to this project, then and still today, was vocal in its assertion that the federal investment was building a duplicative network and not reaching the last mile where service was needed. The grant requirements were that only 20% of the grant dollars could be spent to serve the last mile. However, the thinking was that without the middle mile there is no last mile and that building middle mile infrastructure would provide competitive options for communities in the fiber path.

Known as “The BTOP Project or Network NH Now”, the federal investment in NH required a 20% local match for shovel ready infrastructure projects. A public/private partnership was established between UNH, Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Safety (DOS), NH National Guard (NHNG), NH Public TV (NHPTV) and the private partner New Hampshire Optical System (NHOS) that provided $22 million in match for the federal award. The project built 850 miles of competitive open access non-discriminatory middle mile fiber optic network to community action institutions in all 10 ten counties, 186 miles of New Hampshire Fastroads Network from Orford to Rindge, 86 miles of last mile fiber to the premise in Rindge and Enfield, 20 miles of fiber optic network from Manchester to Concord for DOT highway monitoring, and consolidated 19 mountain top microwave communication sites (DRED, DOS, DOT, NHPTV, and NHNG) for public safety to a multi-user state of the art IP network with fiber connection points to the BTOP middle mile fiber.

Completed in 2013, the BTOP Project and all of its components are operational today. There has been consolidation on the private side by FirstLight Fiber assuming ownership of the majority of NHOS fiber strands including New Hampshire Fastroads, while UNH maintains its portion of the network for education institutions and community anchor institutions.

The NH School Connectivity Initiative (NHSCI) is comprised of the following agencies: UNH, DoIT, Department of Education (DOE), Division of Economic Development (DED), and the National Collaborative for Digital Equity (NCDE). The initiative was a spinoff of the TAB Education Subcommittee and was tasked with collecting data about the broadband connectivity and pricing levels of K-12 schools statewide. At the time, not all schools were filing for federal funding, 32% of schools did not have fiber connectivity, and broadband costs varied across the state even in neighboring districts. Today, many schools have not spent their federal allocation of money for Wi-Fi leaving approximately $17 million of available federal funding, and several school districts are not meeting a basic benchmarkof 100Kbps of capacity per student/staff to take full advantage of the resources available on the Internet.

Through the Governor’s Office, under the administration of Governor Maggie Hassan, NHSCI was introduced to a national group called Education SuperHighway (ESH). ESH and NHSCI began a partnership to increase the number of schools filing for federal e-rate subsidies for connectivity and promote an opportunity for increased funding to construct fiber to all NH schools. If NH created a 10% matching fund, NH schools would receive an additional 10% federal match to cover the cost of fiber construction.

In 2017 NHSCI was successful in getting a state matching fund set up as part of Governor’s Sununu Public School Infrastructure Trust Fund which included security, safety upgrades, and a matching fund for fiber

7 037 construction using e-rate. NHSCI received a $25,000 grant from the NH Charitable Foundation to hire a consultant to work with schools and promote the e-rate program to schools who are not filing for the subsidy. Currently 39 school districts (64 schools) still need fiber connections, 14 school districts still need upgrades, and 73 districts need better Wi-Fi.

In 2012, the First Responder Network Authority was signed into federal law. FirstNet was created as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, and in response to the final recommendation of the 911 Commission after the September 11 attacks and recovery. The federal agency was tasked with building a nationwide commercial cellular LTE network for public safety. Its purpose was to provide a dedicated interoperable network sharing common broadband applications between local, state, and federal public safety responders.

In NH, DOS formed the Statewide Interoperable Executive Committee (SIEC), a legislative committee under emergency management, comprised of various local and state public safety agencies along with subject matter experts to begin the process of deciding how NH would move forward. NH could build its own network subject to FirstNet requirements or opt in to the national plan which awarded the contract to AT&T. The final decision made by Governor Chris Sununu in December 2017 was to opt-in to the national program.

The UNH Broadband Center of Excellence (BcOE), led by Dr Rouzbeh Yassini, maintains a resource website advocating for broadband for all. BcOE did extensive testing of TV white space in a pilot project to deliver broadband to libraries in the seacoast.

The Earth Systems Research Center at UNH has managed the State Broadband Initiative “NH Broadband Mapping and Planning Program (NHBMPP)” since 2010. With funding from NTIA and the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC), the program is focused on improving broadband access and adoption in the state by assessing availability and engaging communities and other stakeholders in planning, capacity building, technical assistance, and training activities.

Early collaboration with the Regional Planning Commissions, when the funding became available, allowed for mapping broadband to the census block and the tracking of availability by county and population to identify gaps in service. NH accepts the FCC’s current definition of broadband as 25Mbps downloads by 3Mbps uploads and recognizes that other internet access at slower speeds constitutes connectivity. Partially funded today by NBRC, the program continues to keep state statistics on availability based on the FCC’s self-reporting of the industry and provides technical presentations and workshops in Coos, Carroll, Grafton, and Sullivan Counties.

NHBMPP produced several reports and an executive summary on Broadband in NH which included mapping, research, public input, and recommendations from the nine Regional Planning Commissions. Funding is being sought to keep mapping and planning activities and data analysis in the initiative moving forward. Without mapping, NH has no basis for understanding where investments may help with broadband expansion efforts. Additional reports on Coos County and targeted communities in NBRC service area are available at www.iwantbroadbandnh.org.

8 038 Current Industry - Wired , Wireless, and Industry Associations (Scott Brooks/TDS Telecom, Chris Rand/Granite State Communications, Chris Hodgdon/Comcast, Melinda Kinney/Spectrum, Tim Wilkerson/NECTA, Ellen Scarponi/Consolidated Communications, FirstLight Fiber/Anthony Salamanca, Owen Smith/AT&T, Lisa Thorne/Verizon Wireless, Pat Robinson/Wireless Partners, Brian Foucher/WiValley, and Stephanie Cassioppi/US Cellular Letter)

The presentations from the industry were grouped into 6 categories and 2 types (wired and wireless). The categories of wired providers included telecom and cable associations, cable companies, and telephone companies (ILECs/CLECs/ELECs). The wireless providers included fixed wireless, cellular wireless, and a brief overview of Satellite. It should be noted that the lion’s share of broadband delivered to the residential market comes from the local telephone and cable companies. Combined they represent a significant portion of the workforce at close to 5,000 employees and contribute millions yearly to local and state economies via property taxes, payroll and benefits, and company and employee charitable contributions. They have invested billions in capital improvements and infrastructure since the mid 90’s.

There are 70+ providers between wholesalers, retailers, and resellers serving business and residential customers across the state. For example, companies like Vonage and Magic Jack use voice over IP to deliver voice services over traditional phone lines, cable internet, or other fixed services.

Facilities based telephone companies such as incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and cable companies have franchise territories which defines the service area to be served within town borders, exchanges, and/or central serving points. None are exclusive meaning that any company could run wire to the premise, but the cost is prohibitive. In NH there are 10 telephone companies and 7 cable companies providing service across the state. There have been many buyouts and consolidations over the last few years as the industry tries to keep up with ever growing demand for faster broadband.

The NH Telephone Association membership includes: Consolidated Communications (FairPoint), Granite State Communications, TDS Companies (5 franchise areas ), Bretton Woods Telephone Company, Dixville Notch Telephone Company, and Dunbarton Telephone Company. These companies have wires on the utility poles and building network interface devices on the homes and businesses in the communities they serve. Most of these companies have received federal support through Connect America Fund (CAF), USDA Rural Utilities, and Lifeline to invest in infrastructure upgrades and provide service to low- income, elderly, and disabled citizens of NH. Consolidated Communications by enlarge has the largest service area of all facilities based companies in the state and is receiving $4.4 million a year for six years to connect 13,131 unserved/underserved addresses with a qualifying service.

Traditional telephone companies provide DSL service which is distance limited. Businesess can get higher speeds on carrier ethernet or fiber up to 10Gbps with service level agreements, but the residential market is restricted to best effort service at slower speeds. In the smaller telephone company franchise territories, it is feasible to run fiber to the premise for business and residential. For example, TDS Hollis offered the first residential Gigabit service in the state more than 3 years ago.

The New England Cable and Information Association (NECTA), representing the major cable companies in

9 039 NH, provided some national statistics on the availability of broadband. According to the FCC, 93% of NH citizens have access to a minimum service defined by a broadband speed of 25Mbps by 3Mbps. According to the US Census Bureau, 39% of NH’s citizens live in rural areas. Other than satellite and mobile wireless devices, cable modems serve the largest share of the broadband market in the state, followed by ADSL and lastly fiber. They are largely responsible for NH’s median download rate of 43.1Mbps.

The top cable companies in NH by size and territory is Comcast, followed by Spectrum, MetroCast, FiberCast, and Argent. There is some territory that is served by smaller telephone companies who are now broadcasting video.

Cable companies offer discounted programs for low-income families with children in school, disabled low-income families and veterans in subsidized housing, and senior citizens. These programs allow every citizen to be connected to broadband for telehealth, educational and training opportunities, and social services.

Fixed wireless services are filling some of the gaps left by the telephone and cable companies in the state. As a “return on investment” prevents the larger companies from expanding into low population rural neighborhoods, a fixed wireless provider can deploy services using wireless access points and customer premise equipment that is economically affordable and sustainable.

WiValley is a wireless internet service provider (WISP) based in Keene that has deployed services to over 2,500 premises in the southwestern side of the state. They are utilizing a hybrid system where it is possible to connect their wireless infrastructure into fiber capacity and are actually providing service over NH’s open access network, known as NH Fastroads, with fiber to the premise in Rindge and Enfield NH.

Not a traditional telephone company, but what is categorized as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) and fiber provider, FirstLight Fiber represents a consolidation of many smaller providers in NH whose assets and customer base have been bought out over the last few years. Privately held by Oak Hill Capital Partners, FirstLight also acquired the assets of the NH BTOP private partner and has become one of the fastest growing fiber providers in the northeast with 12 data centers, 14,000 miles of fiber, and 27,000 customers with multiple offices in four states.

They do not focus on the residential market, but rather on the business sector with major customers in healthcare, education, government, financial and professional services, and other wireless and wired carriers providing a complete portfolio of communication services. They represent most of the only competitive wire on the utilities poles in all 10 counties beside the incumbent telephone or cable companies.

Over the years, millions of dollars have been invested by the wireless cellular industry to expand and upgrade facilities to meet the mobile needs of citizens and visitors to the state. In this day and age of instant connectivity, we come to expect always on mobile access as nearly everyone has a cell phone. The biggest share of market is held by Verizon Wireless, followed by AT&T and US Cellular. T-Mobile and 10 040 Sprint also provide service plans to individuals, families, and businesses.

Their model of deployment requires facilities and equipment be built and located on mountain tops, hilltops, and tall structures. Initially the infrastructure was built to cover major highways, but now cellular communication has become the preferred method of communication by the public. The high standards for signal and data speed require continual upgrades to new generation technologies.

Every increase from 2G, 3G, 4G and eventually to 5G requires increased bandwidth to manage the capacity and a realignment and/or replacement of equipment at facilities. Legislation was passed to allow cellular companies to upgrade their facilities by way of a building permit, as long as it was within a certain footage and footprint, in order to expedite upgrades to new generation technologies. Initial installation of facilities requires local planning board approval and a public hearing.

In 2017 AT&T was awarded a national contract with FirstNet to build a nationwide LTE network for public safety using Band 14. Band 14 was set aside to provide interoperability among local, state, and federal public safety agencies. Every state had the option to opt-in or opt-out of the federal program. New Hampshire worked very hard to prepare the Governor to make that decision. In the end, NH opted- in to the program and was able to secure 48 additional sites. In addition, AT&T provided 12 more sites through acquisition. The benefit to NH is that all sites under development for FirstNet and public safety will also get increased commercial service coverage throughout the state.

Wireless Partners was a recipient of an award from the Coos Economic Development Corporation (CEDC). CEDC applied for and received an NBRC grant to attract cellular carrier investment to provide service in the unserved northern reaches of Coos County. As a result of outreach, Wireless Partners was engaged and agreed to facilitate 4 sites in a phase 1 approach with 10 additional sites in planning. Wireless Partners designs, owns, and manages 4G LTE VoLTE cellular networks in support of rural markets and carriers for voice and data. They are an LRA partner of Verizon Wireless and have roaming agreements with Sprint and AT&T. In addition they partnered with TCC Networks to resell additional fixed wireless broadband capacity to the general public. In late 2017 they announced a partnership with AT&T to provide facilities for FirstNet. Coos County is well positioned to meet the mobile needs of public safety, its residents, and visitors who come north for recreational activities.

Satellite service is available from 6 companies currently. The service, besides being expensive, has high latency, does not carry voice, and is affected by trees, weather, and bad alignment. Bandwidth capacity is metered, limited to 25Mbps, and throttled when a user reaches their data allowance. It does not allow for real time computing and virtual network access due to high latency. Although it is available to most areas of NH, it is not a great service for a heavy user of internet resources.

Non- traditional Business Models for Broadband Deployment (Mark Dean/NHEC, White paper on TV White Spaces/Microsoft)

Electric Coops nationwide are trending towards getting into the business of broadband as an additional funding stream. Set up as a non-profit, they successfully wired the rural areas of the country for

11 041 electricity through assistance from the USDA Rural Electrification Administration. Coops already have access to poles and customer premises and are deploying wireless electric meters in the next generation of technologies used to efficiently conduct business. They routinely have fiber monitoring their systems and wireless communication for advance metering, outage alerts, system management, and remotely dispatched workers, using mountain tops, hill tops, and tall structures.

The New Hampshire Electric Cooperative (NHEC) is one of 30 Coops nationwide and at one time offered a partner satellite service to its members. That service was discontinued in 2010. NHEC is not providing broadband but is considering its future communication needs which include smart grid features, energy storage, micro grids, worker dispatch, systems, demand reduction measures, and distributed generation integration.

With 60 miles of fiber, 23 microwave links covering over 350 miles, 21 tower sites, 13 communication shelters, and 150 federal, local, and state permits, NHEC could decide to enter the market and provide broadband services to its member over the expanded infrastructure. They are in a listening and learning mode for the time being.

A white paper from Microsoft was shared with the committee which talks about their initiative to connect rural communities to broadband using TV white spaces within the next five years. They proposed partnering with telecommunication companies for 12 projects in 12 states within the next 12 months to provide proof of concept. They are not interested in getting into the business, but instead will offer up front capital for projects and a revenue share from operators to recoup investment. Revenue proceeds will be used to invest in new projects.

Municipal networks are another way to build infrastructure to serve municipal buildings and schools. Widespread deployment of service to businesses and residents has not been a model that any municipality in New Hampshire has tested to date. Up until 2017, restrictions in current statute had discouraged development of such networks in New Hampshire.

Public /private partnerships have been successful in building networks while sharing the cost of deployment. BTOP is an example of how a private partner who has expertise in the industry can utilize a public resource.

Funding Resources (Katy Easterly-Maty/NHCDFA, Deborah Nanfeldt and Rick Gordon/USDA Rural Utilities, Tammy St Gelais/NH Bond Bank)

Financial resources for broadband expansion are limited by the requirements of each source in a number of ways. These requirements may include serving low to moderate income (LMI) households, specifically targeting unserved populations, being restricted to eligible territories, or funding eligibility to certain organizations.

An in-state resource is the New Hampshire Community Development Authority (NHCDFA). It offers Community Block Grants that could be used for broadband infrastructure projects, digital literacy 12 042 classes, economic development grants/loans to for-profit businesses that focus on broadband access, and technology. It is a competitive bucket of funding that must serve a LMI defined territory at 51% of the population. NHCDFA has not invested yet in broadband infrastructure other than an investment in New Hampshire Fastroads.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utility Service Telecommunications Programs offer grants, loans, and loan guarantees to eligible entities up to $20 million. The federal program requires that participants be legal entities and own facilities. They must provide a connection speed of 25Mbps/3Mpbs for loans and 4Mbps/1Mbps for grants to unserved areas with a population base less than 20,000.

All telecommunications companies that provide interstate and international telecommunications service contribute to the federal Universal Service Fund (USF). This cost is passed through on customer bills and the companies remit the collected fees to the federal government. Our contributions support four Universal Service programs established and overseen by the FCC: Schools and Libraries E-rate, Rural Health Care, Lifeline, and the Connect America Fund. In the past couple of years the FCC has concentrated on modernizing the fund to expand broadband while reducing subsidies to independent telephone companies. The NH Telephone Association expressed concern over the reduction and diversion of their allocations to the Connect America Fund. New Hampshire is considered a donor state as only 44% of each dollar remitted is returned to New Hampshire for investment. The Connect America Fund is dedicated to incumbent providers who agree to serve high cost areas under a subsidy at a higher rate. In New Hampshire, Consolidated Communications was awarded $4.4 million of annual funding to reach 13,331 addresses with a CAF-II qualifying service at 10Mbps.

USDA has financed several projects in NH through their 2010 ARRA Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP), Community Connect Grant Program, Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program, and Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program. The following NH companies and organizations received grants or loans: Dunbarton Telephone Company, North Country Education Services, University of New Hampshire, Mary Hitchcock Hospital, Newport Town School District, Northern Community Investment Corporations (NCIC) pre 2010 dba WirelessLinc, Bretton Woods Telephone Company, Kearsarge Telephone Company, and Merrimack Telephone Company. The small telephone companies in NH used their funding to build fiber to the premise in their service area.

The NH Municipal Bond Bank was created by the state legislature and has provided short term and long term financing to communities since 1977 for capital projects allowed by state statues (RSA 33:3). Broadband under the legislation is considered a capital improvement or infrastructure project. Long term project applications financed with general obligation bonds are accepted twice a year.

13 043 The New Hampshire Municipal Association, Legislation, and Public Comment (Kordell Johnston/NH Municipal Association, Kathleen Miller/DTC Lawyers, Sturdy Thomas/Dublin, Bill Dowey/Bristol, Rep John Lewicky/Mason, Jeanne Dietsch/Council of Rural Affairs, Tom Strickland/Sequoia Technologies, Jo Anne Carr/Town of Jaffrey, Jason Batchelder/Lyndeborough, Dave and Nikki Andrews/Wilton, Bob Silva/Wilton, Elizabeth Solan/Lyndeborough, Paula Isabella/Wilton)

The NH Municipal Association has worked collectively for many member towns by providing access to workshops, educational sessions, and testimony at the legislature on bonding, special assessment districts, and right-of-way taxation. They have been very helpful in reviewing proposed legislation, statutes, and timelines needed for cities and towns to take advantage of tools to enhance infrastructure.

Before July 2017, state statutes allowed bonding for internet infrastructure but was restrictive to the point where no municipality had taken advantage of this finance tool for expanding service. Legal opinion had pointed out the failings in the current statute and communities were discouraged from the use of the bond bank for broadband.

Many attempts over the years brought the issue back to the legislature, but corrective action failed until the last legislative session when two bills were introduced. The bill in the House failed at the committee level, while the bill in the Senate (SB 170) was revised with more favorable terms crafted by the industry. It passed into law at the end of the session. It is unknown if any municipality will seek to bond for infrastructure in the future. The biggest challenges that remain include ownership of the asset, repayment of the bond, and the public process required at town meeting to bond for broadband.

Kathleen Miller from DTC Lawyers prepared a presentation and a revised legal opinion on SB 170. It outlines the previous statute and the modification to the statute. DTC Lawyers specialize in telecommunications law.

In 2015, legislation was passed to allow communities to create special assessment districts for public facilities to include communications infrastructure. It is modeled after village district legislation which allows a project to be completely financed by the town, then paid back over time as a special assessment rate on yearly tax bills.

Municipal leaders and residents representing the communities of Peterborough, Jaffrey, Wilton, Lyndeborough, Mason, and Dublin testified during the committee meeting. Their testimony detailed their frustration and disappointment in the service offerings. Availability, affordability, and capacity were most often cited as a deterrent to economic development efforts in their communities.

Broadband Survey of NH Business

GRANIT at UNH, DED and Live Free & Start (LF&S) undertook a project to survey New Hampshire business. The common thought at the time was that most complaints come from the rural residential market and that business, for the most part, was getting the service they needed. The reality is that more and more residents are conducting some or all of their work from home. Large businesses were able to afford broadband bandwidth that was sized appropriately. There is a role for government to play

14 044 in the expansion of broadband.

Here is a highlight of some of the results:

Type of Business

 Responding businesses were equally distributed among northern NH, western NH, the central/lakes region, the seacoast, and Hillsborough County  40% of responding businesses are in the professional, technical, information, communication, finance, insurance, and real estate markets at their primary business address  17% have more than 50 employees  65% have 1 – 10 employees  29% are home based businesses

Usage

 99% say high-speed internet (broadband) is important to their current primary business needs  75% of responding businesses say employees need daily access to Internet at their business location  91% use the Internet for communication with staff and customers  74% use it for marketing and advertising including social media  70% use it to download large files  49% use it for data storage/sharing  48% use it for credit card billing and processing  46% use it for online/storefront ordering  29% provide wifi for public use

Working at Home – company policy on telecommuting

 74% say that it is important for the employees of their primary business to be able to do work from home  54% of responding businesses say faster and more reliable home internet would enable employees to telework from home more often

Government Efforts to Enhance Broadband

 11% of responding businesses say their local government has discussed financing options to pay for enhanced broadband quality and reliability  81% say it is important that local government explore improvements to broadband by grants, public-private partnerships, and state or local funding

Current Internet Service at the Primary Business Location

 42% of responding businesses are using cable modem technology  19% of responding businesses are using DSL technology  19% of responding businesses are using fiber to the premise technology and employ more than 15 045 50 employees with a symmetrical business service mostly in the manufacturing sector and are purchasing more than 100Mbps of bandwidth and 23% are purchasing bandwidth under 100Mbps.  7% of responding businesses are using an asymmetrical business service with 100 Mbps of bandwidth and 30% are purchasing bandwidth from 26Mbps – 100Mbps  40% of home based businesses are using a residential asymmetrical service

Sufficiency and Reliability

 55% of responding businesses say their internet access speed is sufficient for their primary business needs today  89% of responding businesses say their high-speed broadband is reliable  83% of responding businesses say that high-speed broadband will be more important in the next 5 to 10 years.

Internet Service Cost

 11% of businesses are paying less than $50 monthly for internet  64% of home based businesses are paying less than $100 monthly for DSL and/or fixed wireless  32% of business are paying more than $200 monthly for high-speed internet  67% of businesses with fiber to the premise are paying more than $150 monthly for high-speed internet  28% of respondents say their primary business would be willing to pay more for faster or more reliable high-speed internet service

Competitive Options

 49% of responding businesses say they are not aware of any competitive options available to their primary business  50% of responding businesses are aware of competitive options available to their primary business

Suggested Recommendations by Participants

These policy recommendations were crafted and brought forth by the testimony of participants in the study for consideration.

1. Establish a Broadband Authority and Broadband Council a. Obtain and distribute funding from federal, state, and other sources b. Work with congressional delegation to encourage funding resources

2. Eliminate Barriers to Broadband Availability a. Adopt a broadband vision for the state that builds upon the National Broadband Plan b. Encourage the integration of broadband strategies when developing local and state strategic plans 16 046

3. Encourage Competition to Improve Broadband Affordability a. Support policies on FCC funding and resource tools to encourage competition b. Facilitate the development and expansion of public/private partnerships

4. Coordinate, Promote, and Sponsor Trainings to Increase Broadband Adoption a. Keep current with marketing/advertising materials that describe importance of broadband b. Work with schools, libraries, higher education, and health care institutions

5. Monitor Broadband Availability and Adoption a. Develop and maintain a broadband website that measures and reports on broadband expansion progress b. Promote public access to existing address data to support enhanced broadband maps

6. Introduce Enabling Legislation to Remove Barriers for Broadband Expansion a. Establish a tax credit incentive for telecommunication industry b. Allow towns to regionalize their efforts by establishing regional districts for communications c. Create a state matching fund that could be used by municipalities, schools, and libraries

17 047 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=796&txtFor...

CHAPTER 118 SB 170 - FINAL VERSION

01/03/2018 2497s 04/26/2018 1808EBA 2018 SESSION 17-0794 06/01

SENATE BILL

AN ACT relative to the authority of towns to issue bonds for the expansion of broadband infrastructure.

SPONSORS: Sen. Kahn, Dist 10; Rep. Bordenet, Ches. 5

COMMITTEE: Public and Municipal Affairs

------

ANALYSIS

This bill permits municipalities to issue bonds for the purpose of providing or expanding broadband infrastructure.

------

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.] Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 01/03/2018 2497s 04/26/2018 1808EBA 17-0794 06/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eighteen

AN ACT relative to the authority of towns to issue bonds for the expansion of broadband infrastructure.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

118:1 Municipal Finance Act; Definitions; Location. Amend RSA 33:1, III to read as follows: III. "Net indebtedness,'' all outstanding and authorized indebtedness, heretofore or hereafter incurred by a municipality, exclusive of the following: unmatured tax anticipation notes issued 048 1 of 5 25-Oct-20, 15:30 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=796&txtFor...

according to law; or notes issued in anticipation of grants of federal or state aid or both; debts incurred for supplying the inhabitants with water or for the construction, enlargement, improvement or maintenance of water works; debts incurred to finance the cost of sewerage systems or enlargements or improvements thereof, or sewage or waste disposal works when the cost thereof is to be financed by sewer rents or sewer assessment; debt incurred pursuant to RSA 31:10; debts incurred to finance energy production projects, the reconstruction or enlargement of a municipally owned utility, or the manufacture or furnishing of light, heat, power or water for the public, or the generation, transmission or sale of energy ultimately sold to the public; debts incurred to finance small scale power facilities under RSA 374-D; debts incurred outside the statutory debt limit of the municipality under any general law or special act heretofore or hereafter enacted (unless otherwise provided in such legislation); and sinking funds and cash applicable solely to the payment of the principal of debts incurred within the debt limit[.]; IV. "Location," property, parcel, or address where broadband could be purchased by a customer. 118:2 Municipal Finance Act; Purpose of Issue of Bonds. Amend RSA 33:3 to read as follows: 33:3 Purpose of Issue of Bonds or Notes. A municipality or county may issue its bonds or notes for the acquisition of land, for economic development, for planning relative to public facilities, for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, and enlargement or purchase of public buildings, for other public works or improvements, or for the financing of improvements, of a permanent nature including broadband infrastructure as defined in RSA 38:38, I(e), [to be purchased or constructed in areas not served by an existing broadband carrier or provider,] to serve any location within a municipality unserved by broadband as defined in RSA 38:38, I(c) for the purchase of departmental equipment of a lasting character, and for the payment of judgments[, and for purposes of economic development which]. The issuance of such bonds or notes shall include, but not be limited to, public-private partnerships involving capital improvements, loans, financing, and guarantees. The public benefit in any public-private partnership must outweigh any benefit accruing to a private party. Bonds or notes for the purposes of economic development may be issued only after the governing body of the municipality or county has held hearings and presented the public benefit findings to the public and after such issuance has been approved by the legislative body. A municipality or county shall not issue bonds or notes to provide for the payment of expenses for current maintenance and operation except as otherwise specifically provided by law. 118:3 Municipal Finance Act; Issue of Bonds for Preliminary Expenses. Amend RSA 33:3-c, I to read as follows: I. A municipality or county may issue its bonds or notes for the purpose of defraying the cost of preliminary or final plans and specifications or other preliminary expenses incidental to, or connected with, any proposed public work or improvement of a permanent nature consisting of 049 2 of 5 25-Oct-20, 15:30 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=796&txtFor...

the construction, reconstruction, alteration, enlargement, [or] improvement,or the financing of the construction, reconstruction, alteration, enlargement, or improvement of the following: (a) A public building. (b) A water works. (c) A sewerage system or sewage or waste treatment facility. (d) A solid waste disposal or resource recovery facility. (e) Broadband infrastructure as defined in RSA 38:38, I(e) [to be purchased or] constructed [in areas not served] to serve any locations within a municipality unserved by [an existing] broadband [carrier or provider] as defined in RSA 38:38, I(c). 118:4 Municipal Finance Act; Broadband Infrastructure Bonds. Amend RSA 33:3-g to read as follows: 33:3-g Broadband Infrastructure Bonds. I. A municipality may issue bonds for the purpose of financing the development, construction, reconstruction, [renovation,] and improvement[, and acquisition] of broadband infrastructure in [areas not served by an existing broadband carrier or provider that would be provided at a fee to broadband carriers that provide broadband services] any locations within a municipality unserved by broadband as defined in RSA 38:38, I(c). Without limiting the foregoing, broadband infrastructure may be the subject of public-private partnerships established in accordance with the provisions of RSA 33:3. II. Bonds issued under this section shall be payable in annual payments so that the amount of annual payment of principal and interest in any year on account of any bond shall be not less than the amount of principal and interest payable in any subsequent year by more than 5 percent of the principal of the entire bond. The total amount of payments shall be sufficient to extinguish the entire bond at such bond's maturity. The first payment of principal on any bond shall be made no later than 5 years and the last payment not later than 30 years after the date issued. Each authorized issue of bonds shall be a separate and distinct loan. III. A municipality shall not issue bonds for the purpose of financing the development, construction, reconstruction, renovation, improvement, and acquisition of broadband infrastructure in [areas not served by an existing broadband carrier or provider] any location within a municipality unserved by broadband as defined in RSA 38:38, I(c) unless a request for [proposals] information has been issued [and no broadband carrier or provider has responded positively within 2 months or deployed broadband service within 14 months of the issuance of the request for proposals], at a minimum, to all providers serving the issuing community and such providers have been given 2 months to respond to the request. The request for information may include, but is not limited to, information identifying locations within a municipality unserved by broadband as defined in RSA 38:38, I(c). After completing, issuing, and receiving responses to such request for 050 3 of 5 25-Oct-20, 15:30 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=796&txtFor...

information, a municipality may issue a request for proposals for the purpose of engaging in a public-private partnership pursuant to RSA 33:3 or RSA 33-B for the deployment of broadband infrastructure, as defined in RSA 38:38, I(e), and the provision of broadband service as defined in RSA 38:38, I(f). A municipality may select a proposal based on criteria including, but not limited to, provider ability to deploy, manage, and maintain a broadband network which meets or exceeds the anticipated needs of the community. A municipality may determine that no provider has met the criteria included in the request for proposals and may issue bonds for purposes pursuant to RSA 33:3 and RSA 33-B, including but not limited to, open networks. 118:5 Municipal Revenue Bonds; Definitions; Revenue-producing Facilities. Amend RSA 33- B:1, VI to read as follows: VI. "Revenue-producing facilities'' means water works, broadband infrastructure as defined in RSA 38:38, I(e), purchased or constructed [in areas not served by an existing broadband carrier or provider] to serve any location within a municipality unserved by broadband as defined in RSA 38:38, I(c), sewerage systems, sewage treatment or disposal facilities, solid waste disposal or resource recovery facilities, parking facilities, facilities for the production, generation, transmission, or distribution of electricity or gas, any other real or personal property or interests in a municipality or regional water district owned or controlled by the municipality or regional water district, from the operation of which revenues are or are expected to be derived by the municipality, or regional water district, and qualifying energy conservation and clean energy improvements for which a municipality provides financing pursuant to RSA 53-F. 118:6 Broadband Access; Definitions. Amend RSA 38:38, I to read as follows: I. In this subdivision: (a) "Access tariff'' means the fee charged on a monthly or annual basis to broadband [carriers] providers for access to the broadband infrastructure. (b) "Areas not served'' means any part of a municipality without a wireless or facilities based broadband service or a wireless or facilities based broadband service provider. Wireless shall not include subscription satellite service. (c) "Broadband'' means the transmission of information, between or among points specified by the user, with or without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received, at rates of transmission defined by the Federal Communications Commission as ["broadband.''] a wireline advanced telecommunications capability as defined by section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, irrespective of the network technology used. (d) "Broadband [carrier] provider'' means any provider of broadband services, except aggregators of broadband services, as defined in section 226 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. (e) "Broadband infrastructure'' means all equipment and facilities, including all changes, 051 4 of 5 25-Oct-20, 15:30 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=796&txtFor...

modifications, and expansions to existing facilities, as well as the customer premises equipment used to provide broadband, as defined in subparagraph (c), and any software integral to or related to the operations, support, facilitation, or interconnection of such equipment[, including upgrades, and any installation, operations and support, maintenance, and other functions required to support the delivery of broadband]. (f) "Broadband service'' means the offering of broadband for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used. (g) "Open network'' means any broadband infrastructure which is open to any third party users in a nondiscriminatory manner on a fair and equitable basis using publicly available access tariffs for services. (h) "Open network interfaces'' means the technical and operational means, manners, and methods for any third party access to the broadband infrastructure, which shall be provided on the basis of generally acceptable industry standards available at the time of access. 118:7 Broadband Fund. Amend RSA 38:40, I to read as follows: I. The funds received from the collection of access tariffs shall be kept as a separate fund to be known as the broadband fund. Such fund shall be allowed to accumulate from year to year, shall not be commingled with town or city tax revenues, and shall not be deemed part of the municipality's general fund accumulated surplus. Such fund may be expended only for the purposes specified in RSA [38:38, or for the previous expansion or replacement of broadband infrastructure] 33:3 and RSA 33-B. 118:8 Repeal. RSA 38:38, I(b), relative to the definition of areas not served by broadband, is repealed. 118:9 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

Approved: May 30, 2018 Effective Date: July 29, 2018

052 5 of 5 25-Oct-20, 15:30 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=47&txtForm...

HB 132-FN - AS INTRODUCED

2019 SESSION 19-0047 05/10

HOUSE BILL

AN ACT relative to net neutrality.

SPONSORS: Rep. Oxenham, Sull. 1; Rep. Abramson, Rock. 20

COMMITTEE: Science, Technology and Energy

------

ANALYSIS

This bill:

I. Requires the department of information technology to develop a process for Internet service providers to certify compliance with consumer protection and net neutrality standards.

II. Requires such certification for an Internet service provider to be eligible to enter into a service contract with a state agency on or after April 15, 2020.

III. Directs the attorney general to review network management practices of ISPs in New Hampshire and assess compliance with the 2015 FCC net neutrality rules.

------

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.] Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 19-0047 05/10

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nineteen

AN ACT relative to net neutrality.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

053 1 of 9 25-Oct-20, 15:21 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=47&txtForm...

1 Statement of Findings. The general court finds and declares that: I. Our state has a compelling interest in preserving and promoting an open Internet in New Hampshire. II. As New Hampshire is a rural state with many geographically remote locations, broadband Internet access service is essential for supporting economic and educational opportunities, strengthening health and public safety networks, and reinforcing freedom of expression and democratic, social, and civic engagement. III. The accessibility and quality of communications networks in New Hampshire, specifically broadband Internet access service, will critically impact our state's future. IV. Net neutrality is an important topic for many New Hampshire residents and transparency with respect to the network management practices of Internet service providers (ISPs) doing business in New Hampshire will continue to be of great interest to many people living and working in the state. V. In 1996, Congress recognized that "[t]he Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity" and "[i]ncreasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services." 47 U.S.C. section 230(a)(3) and (5). VI. Many renters do not have the ability to choose easily between ISPs. This lack of a thriving competitive market, particularly in isolated locations, disadvantages the ability of consumers and businesses to protect their interests sufficiently. VII. Without net neutrality, "ISPs will have the power to decide which websites you can access and at what speed each will load. In other words, they'll be able to decide which companies succeed online, which voices are heard - and which are silenced." Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the World Wide Web and Director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), December 13, 2017. VIII. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) recent repeal of the federal net neutrality rules pursuant to its Restoring Internet Freedom Order manifests a fundamental shift in policy. IX. The FCC anticipates that a "light-touch" regulatory approach under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, rather than "utility-style" regulation under Title II, will further advance the Congressional goals of promoting broadband deployment and infrastructure investment. X. The FCC's regulatory approach is unlikely to achieve the intended results in New Hampshire. The policy does little, if anything, to overcome the financial challenges of bringing broadband service to hard-to-reach locations with low population density. However, it may result in degraded Internet quality or service. The state has a compelling interest in preserving and protecting consumer access to high quality Internet service. 054 2 of 9 25-Oct-20, 15:21 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=47&txtForm...

XI. The economic theory advanced in the FCC in 2010 known as the "virtuous circle of innovation" seems more relevant to the market conditions in New Hampshire. See In re Preserving the Open Internet, 25 F.C.C.R. 17905, 17910-11 (2010). XII. As explained in the FCC's 2010 order, "The Internet's openness...enables a virtuous circle of innovation in which new uses of the network - including new content, applications, services, and devices - lead to increased end-user demand for broadband, which drives network improvements, which in turn lead to further innovative network uses. Novel, improved, or lower-cost offerings introduced by content, application, service, and device providers spur end- user demand and encourage broadband providers to expand their networks and invest in new broadband technologies." 25 FCC Rcd. at 17910-11, upheld by Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623, 644-45 (D.C. Circuit 2014). XIII. As affirmed by the FCC 5 years later, "the key insight of the virtuous cycle is that broadband providers have both the incentive and the ability to act as gatekeepers standing between edge providers and consumers. As gatekeepers, they can block access altogether; they can target competitors, including competitors in their own video services; and they can extract unfair tolls." Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd at para. 20. XIV. The state may exercise its traditional role in protecting consumers from potentially unfair and anticompetitive business practices. Doing so will provide critical protections for New Hampshire individuals, entrepreneurs, and small businesses that do not have the financial clout to negotiate effectively with commercial providers, some of whom may provide services and content that directly compete with New Hampshire companies or companies with whom New Hampshire residents do business. XV. The FCC's most recent order expressly contemplates a state's exercise of its traditional police powers on behalf of consumers: "we do not disturb or displace the states' traditional role in generally policing such matters as fraud, taxation, and general commercial dealings, so long as the administration of such general state laws does not interfere with federal regulatory objectives." Restoring Internet Freedom Order, WC Docket No. 17-108, FCC 17-166, para. 196. XVI. The benefits of state measures designed to protect the ability of people in this state to have unfettered access to the Internet far outweigh the benefits of allowing ISPs to manipulate Internet traffic for pecuniary gain. XVII. The most recent order of the FCC contemplates federal and local enforcement agencies preventing harm to consumers: "In the unlikely event that ISPs engage in conduct that harms Internet openness...we find that utility-style regulation is unnecessary to address such conduct. Other legal regimes - particularly antitrust law and the FTC's authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices - provide protections to consumers." para. 140. The attorney general enforces antitrust violations or violations of the Consumer Protection Act in New Hampshire. 055 3 of 9 25-Oct-20, 15:21 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=47&txtForm...

XVIII. The state has a compelling interest in knowing with certainty what services it receives pursuant to state contracts. XIX. Procurement laws are for the benefit of the state. When acting as a market participant, the government enjoys unrestricted power to contract with whomever it deems appropriate and purchase only those goods or services it desires. XX. The disclosures required by this act are a reasonable exercise of the state's traditional police powers and will support the state's efforts to monitor consumer protection and economic factors in New Hampshire particularly with regard to competition, business practices, and consumer choice, and will also enable consumers to stay apprised of the network management practices of ISPs offering service in New Hampshire. XXI. The state is in the best position to balance the needs of its constituencies with policies that best serve the public interest. The state has a compelling interest in promoting Internet consumer protection and net neutrality standards. Any incidental burden on interstate commerce resulting from the requirements of this act is far outweighed by the compelling interests the state advances. 2 New Subdivision; Department of Information Technology; Internet Service Providers; Net Neutrality Compliance. Amend RSA 21-R by inserting after section 15 the following new subdivision: Internet Service Providers; Net Neutrality Compliance 21-R:16 Definitions. The terms and definitions of this subdivision shall be interpreted broadly and any exceptions interpreted narrowly, using relevant Federal Communications Commission orders, advisory opinions, rulings, and regulations as persuasive guidance. In this subdivision: I. "Broadband Internet access service" means a mass-market retail service by wire or radio in New Hampshire that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. The term also encompasses any service in New Hampshire that the chief information officer finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service described in this subdivision or that is used to evade the protections established in this subdivision. II. "Edge provider" means any person in this state that provides any content, application, or service over the Internet and any person in this state that provides a device used for accessing any content, application, or service over the Internet. III. "Internet service provider" or "provider" means a business that provides broadband Internet access service to any person in this state. IV. "Paid prioritization" means the management of an Internet service provider's network to favor directly or indirectly some traffic over other traffic, including through the use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either in exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise, from a third party or 056 4 of 9 25-Oct-20, 15:21 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=47&txtForm...

to benefit an affiliated entity or both. V. "Reasonable network management" means a practice that has a primarily technical network management justification but does not include other business practices and that is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. 21-R:17 Internet Service Providers; Net Neutrality Compliance. I. The chief information officer, in consultation with the attorney general and commissioner of administrative services, shall develop a process by which an Internet service provider may certify that it is in compliance with the consumer protection and net neutrality standards established in paragraph II. II. A certificate of net neutrality compliance shall be granted to an Internet service provider that demonstrates and the chief information officer finds that the Internet service provider, insofar as the provider is engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service: (a) Does not engage in any of the following practices in New Hampshire: (1) Blocking lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. (2) Impairing or degrading lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service or the use of a nonharmful device, subject to reasonable network management. (3) Engaging in paid prioritization, unless this prohibition is waived pursuant to paragraph III. (4) Unreasonably interfering with or unreasonably disadvantaging either a customer's ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of the customer's choice or an edge provider's ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to a customer. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this prohibition. (5) Engaging in deceptive or misleading marketing practices that misrepresent the treatment of Internet traffic or content to its customers. (b) Publicly discloses to consumers accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. III. The chief information officer may waive the ban on paid prioritization under subparagraph II(a)(3) only if the Internet service provider demonstrates and the chief information officer finds that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet in New Hampshire. 21-R:18 State Contracting; Internet Service. I. Each contract for broadband Internet access service entered into by a state agency on or 057 5 of 9 25-Oct-20, 15:21 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=47&txtForm...

after April 1, 2020, shall include a provision requiring that the Internet service provider certify that it is in compliance with the consumer protection and net neutrality standards established in RSA 21-R:17. II. For purposes of this section, "state agency" means any department, commission, board, institution, bureau, office, or other entity, by whatever name called, including the legislative and judicial branches of state government, established in the state constitution, statutes, session laws or executive orders. 3 Attorney General Review and Disclosure. I. The attorney general shall review the network management practices of Internet service providers in New Hampshire and, to the extent possible, make a determination as to whether the provider's broadband Internet access service complies with the open Internet rules contained in the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order, "Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet," WC Docket No. 14-28, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601. II. The attorney general shall make a report of its findings and review available to the public on the department of justice's website. 4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

LBAO 19-0047 12/4/18

HB 132-FN- FISCAL NOTE AS INTRODUCED

AN ACT relative to net neutrality.

FISCAL IMPACT: [ X ] State [ ] County [ ] Local [ ] None

Estimated Increase / (Decrease) STATE: FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 F Appropriation $0 $0 $0 Revenue $0 $0 $0 Expenditures $735,958 $683,645 $709,645 Funding Source: [ X ] General [ ] Education [ X ] Highway [ X

METHODOLOGY: This bill establishes principles for net neutrality and provides a framework for Internet service providers (ISPs) that opt to secure a certificate of net neutrality compliance. The

058 6 of 9 25-Oct-20, 15:21 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=47&txtForm...

legislation requires that each contract for broadband Internet access entered into by a state agency on or after April 1, 2020 include a provision requiring such certification. State agencies are defined to include any department, commission, board, institution, bureau, office or other entity, and legislative and judicial branches. The Chief Information Officer of the Department of Information Technology (DoIT), the Attorney General (AG) and Commissioner of Administrative Services are required to develop a process by which an ISP may certify that it is in compliance with specified consumer protection and net neutrality standards. The Attorney General (AG) shall review the network management practices of ISPs in New Hampshire and make a determination as to whether the ISP's broadband Internet access service complies with the 2015 net neutrality rules from the Federal Communication Commission.

The DoIT interprets the bill as requiring ISPs to operate under net neutrality principles to do business in the state and also to be eligible to be awarded contracts by the state. DoIT would work with ISPs to certify, monitor, and in collaboration with the Attorney General's Office, enforce the net neutrality principles specified in the bill. DoIT would take on a completely new regulatory role which would require a new bureau to be funded differently than the rest of DoIT. The operational impacts would be administrative overhead during implementation and longer term lost opportunity costs for some senior management staff within DoIT. These lost opportunity costs, estimated to be $27,000 in FY 2020, and roughly $14,000 in each year thereafter. Allocation of senior management expenses attributable to this function would be a general fund cost but will be matched by a decreased cost either in general or other fund expenses, yielding no overall cost increase. Cost estimates include staff, associated space and workspace considerations, technology implementation and maintenance. These operational and financial estimates do not take into account costs that may accrue to the AG's office in support of their part of the mission.

The DoIT would implement case management software to assist in certification monitoring and enforcement activities. This software would facilitate business process discipline and provide exceptional accountability for all involved. AG's office staffers supporting this function would need a license for case management software ($1,500 per user per year).

New DoIT staff positions include the following:

New DoIT Staff Position Salary and Benefits FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Administrative Assistant II (LG 19, Step 1) $67,000 $70,000 $73,000 $77,000 059 7 of 9 25-Oct-20, 15:21 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=47&txtForm...

Utility Analyst IV (LG 30, Step 3) $102,000 $107,000 $112,000 $113,000 Utility Analyst IV (LG 30, Step 3) $102,000 $107,000 $112,000 $113,000 Attorney III (LG30, Step 5) $110,000 $111,000 $117,000 $118,000 Unclassified Director (GG, Step 3) $123,000 $129,000 $135,000 $136,000 TOTAL $504,000 $524,000 $549,000 $557,000

Total costs for DoIT are accounted for as follows:

DoIT All New FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Costs (5) New Positions $504,000 $524,000 $549,000 $557,000 Office Space & Technology $80,458 $23,145 $23,145 $23,145 Case Management Software $27,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 TOTAL $611,958 $554,645 $579,645 $587,645

The Department of Justice states it would need to hire a full time attorney with the requisite experience to handle the review to certify compliance and networking management practices of ISPs. The combined salary and benefits for this position are as follows: $124,000 for FY 2020; $129,000 for FY 2021; $130,000 for FY 2022; and $131,000 for FY 2023.

The Department of Administrative Services (DAS) indicates contracts entered into by the state will include the necessary net neutrality requirements in the bid solicitation materials. Such RFPs or contracts will be determined and drafted by the Department of Justice, and DAS will notify potential bidders and contractors of the certification requirement and reject bids without such certification as part of the existing bidding and contracting process. DAS estimates there will be no additional expenses or revenues in the Division of Procurement and Support Services due to this change but there is a potential unknown fiscal impact for integration with the current enterprise resources planning system and sub systems within the Financial Data Management Division. The DAS also does not currently administer contracts for the legislative or judicial branches or numerous other agencies pursuant to RSA 21-I:18 and assumes this will continue.

The Judicial Branch states unless the branch has to hire a third party to certify that their ISP is in compliance with the legislation, there would be no fiscal impact in excess of $10,000.

The Legislative Branch states there is no fiscal impact to the branch but it is unknown if certified ISPs would charge more for their services. 060 8 of 9 25-Oct-20, 15:21 Firefox http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=47&txtForm...

AGENCIES CONTACTED: Departments of Information Technology, Administrative Services and Justice, Judicial and Legislative Branches

061 9 of 9 25-Oct-20, 15:21