House Standing Committee on Agriculture & Food Systems

Aloha kakahiaka. Welcome to the hearing on the House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. Today is Friday, February 7th, and we are in Room 325 at the Hawaii State Capitol, and this is the 9:30am hearing notice agenda.

I am serving as Chair of this Committee, Kirstin Kahaloa, and today we have with us Vice Chair Representative Kusch and Representative Perruso. Before we get started, I just have a few housekeeping measures, rules. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there's a two minute time limit per testifier to allow us to have every testifier to have the opportunity to testify, since we do need to conclude our hearing before our noon floor session.

Please keep yourself muted if you're joining us via Zoom and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only function for technical issues. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If if disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits.

Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifiers' end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making only. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted.

Please avoid using any trademarked or copyright images and also please refrain refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. And on that note, we'd like to proceed with our agenda. First bill on the agenda today is HB 428, relating to Farm to Families.

This bill establishes the Hawaii Farm to Families Program to alleviate food shortages in the state. Requires report to the Legislature prior to the regular session of 2026 and 2027. Appropriates funds. First to testify in this measure is Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The Department stands on its strong support for this measure, as we know how important this is to feeding our families across Hawaii. We are here for any questions. Mahalo for allowing me to testify.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Hunger Action Network here in person. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. We have Hawaii Farmers Union.

Hunter Heaivilin on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We'll stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Next we have the Hawaii Foodbank.

Hi. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Rep. Perruso, Members of the Committee. My name is Amy Miller. I'm the President and CEO of Hawaii Foodbank, and we are very happy to be here today in strong support of this measure. If I may, I just want to share a little bit about why this is so important.

So Hawaii Foodbank directly serves the islands of Oahu and Kauai. Through a network about 225 partner agencies, we're able to get last year got almost 18 million meals into community through this network. Right now we are serving about 170,000 people on average per month in those two islands.

That's as many people as we are serving during the height of the COVID pandemic, and the numbers are continuing to tick up every single month. One of the things that we know is that produce, fresh produce, fresh foods tends to be one of the first things that falls off of people's grocery lists as times get tight so people pivot towards less healthy food items.

So this bill gives the opportunity for our community who can't afford local fresh foods to get access to that really good food that will have long term impacts, positive impacts on health. Last year we released the State of Food Insecurity in Hawaii Report and found that 30% of Hawaii households are food insecure.

10% are going without food for whole days some or most months of the year. On a regular basis here in Hawaii we have people going for whole days without eating. 6% of our kids are going for whole days without eating. It's a really critical issue. We are so grateful to this Committee for considering this bill and are in very strong support. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next we have Maui Food Bank via Zoom.

Aloha, and thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Lisa Paulson with the Maui Food Bank, and I stand in strong support of this bill and stand by my written testimony, with the addition of supporting all that Amy Miller has just said. And in Maui County, we serve on average 45,000 people a month, so this bill is very important to us and in providing fresh produce for our community. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next to testify we have Kaiser Permanente.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Jonathan Chang for Kaiser Permanente. I apologize for our late testimony. Just stand on our in strong support of this testimony or in this strong support of this measure. Available for any questions.

Thank you. Hawaii Food Industry Association.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA. We stand on our testimony in support. Again, we are, we also apologize for the late testimony. And I'd be happy to Answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We received over 87 testimonies in support, but no one else indicating they wish to testify in person at this time. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Anyone on Zoom? No. Seeing none. Members, questions?

I have a quick question. Thank you, Chair. For Amy from the food bank. You know, I'm embarrassed to say that I don't, I have not participated in a food bank activity or, you know, helping feed. Can you walk me through a little bit about what a weekday and a weekend operation might look back, just quickly?

Sure. So we run every day. There's maybe up to a dozen distributions happening across, across the islands. So it could vary. It could be a pantry in a church. It could be a large distribution where multiple families are coming. So for instance, we might do a distribution in partnership with an agency. They're responsible.

They sign up the families. Families will show up at a given time. They can come and get food items that they need. Sometimes they can pick. Sometimes we have things already prepared for them. We've really been investing to try to get more cold storage out into our agencies.

So if you say work during the week, don't have opportunity to access a weekday pantry or a weekday distribution, where oftentimes we have the trucks out so we can get fresh food right to folks. You can go to a pantry that has cold storage and get access to fresh foods like that.

So that happens, again, dozens of times every single week. And it just depends. One of the things that I think is really amazing about this network is food bank. The food banks, really our job is to provide the food, but it gets out into community through these partners. Right. So it's churches, it's nonprofits, it's volunteers, people that just really care about each other, that are in community getting food out to people. Happy to talk more.

Great. So you have, you have a lot of flexibility in that.

Yes.

Okay, well, thank you. I appreciate you kind of painting that picture.

Thank you so much.

Since you're, since you're here, I will just ask a quick question as well. Can you enlighten us a little bit on other states that may state fund a program like this rather than ask for an avenue of maybe the nonprofit grant and aid process? Can you tell us a little bit more about what other states are doing to kind of provide maybe a more foundational funding support to food banks?

Sure. So this idea of funding, state funding for local food purchase is quite popular. We've just done some research and I believe we have examples of at least 10 other states are doing this. And it can vary. So every state has its its own system. I think, gosh, you know, up to millions of dollars in some of the larger states. And sometimes they are, there's strict requirements on the kinds of farmers that can participate. So maybe have small farmers only, others have pick and pack out programs. But I think it's a very common mechanism for states to both support families in need and to make sure those dollars are going back to support their local agricultural producers as well.

Perfect. Thank you so much. Members, any further questions? Seeing none, we're going to move on to the next measure. HB 967 relating to sustainable food systems. Establishes the statewide Interagency Food Systems Coordination Team and the Interagency Food Systems Working Group within the Department of Agriculture. Requires reports to the Legislature, establishes positions and appropriates funds.

First to testify on this measure is Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Chair, the Department of Agriculture stands on it's written comments offering strong support for the measure.

Thank you. Next we have Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Good morning. Office of Planning and Sustainable Development stands on its testimony in strong support.

Thank you. Next we have Agribusiness Development Corporation. Frankie.

Good morning chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Frankie Impeno. I'm here on behalf of the Agribusiness Development Corporation. ADC stands on its written testimony in support. And I would also like to note that we defer all decisions regarding funding for this working group to the Department of Agriculture as stated in our testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have the Hawaii Food Bank.

[inaudible testimony]

Thank you. Hawaii Farmers Union.

Hawaii Farmers Union, we stand on our written testimony in strong support.

Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. And we have Hawaii Food Industry Association.

Good morning again, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA.

We're in support of this measure and as the measure notes that the co chairs are able to invite interested parties from outside organizations to participate and we would be very happy to lend our expertise and be invited to participate when the group is formed. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We had a lot of supportive testimony also on this measure. 13 in support. Two organizations in with comments. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, questions?

Do we have questions on this one? I didn't see any.

Okay, here is the page.

Okay. We've seen that we have no questions. We're going to move on to the next measure. HB 812 relating to agriculture requires a contract for the purchase of local produce having a value of more than $250 to be for a term of at least five years. First to testify on this measure is Hawaii State Department of Education.

Thank you. State Procurement Office via Zoom.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Bonnie Kahakoi, Administrator State Procurement Office will stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, chair. Hawaii's Farmer- Farmers Union, stands on our written testimony in support of the intent of this measure.

Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify in HB 812? Members, questions?

Yes. Yes.

Representative Perruso.

I have a question for SPO. So hi, thanks for being here. So I noticed in the Department of Education's testimony that they were concerned about the lack of flexibility of the- the shall language. Right.

So if we change shall to may in this measure to provide more flexibility, I understand or I think the intent of this measure is to provide the stability of long term contracts which is actually an incentive for farmers to engage with our state agencies and departments.

I understand the concern about lack of flexibility, but I'm wondering because we've had these conversations over the years, do you think that if we make it more flexible, that will impact or support the work that's being done at the Department of Education?

Just because my perception of the procurement work that's done under the school food services branch is separate and apart from the work that SPO does. So should this language be written into law, it will provide language that could provide guidance for the department.

But I'm wondering if you feel like it will affect the Department of Education's actual efforts or work in this area. So that's- there are a lot of questions all wrapped up in that question. Sorry.

Thanks for the question. Understanding if you change it to may, I think that would not hamper DOE's efforts because the DOE Chief Procurement Officer can make it more restrictive and say for certain products that they, their department shall make it- make the contract for a specific number of years.

I'm just concerned if you make it shall for statewide then we're going to run into some problems.

I see. Okay. So that's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. I have a question for you as well for the State Procurement Office. Bonnie, I- I understand the prior price adjustment clause, but I wanted to ask a question about amending the value up to- wait, let me make sure. 10- wait. $100,000 from 250. That's a- That's a big adjustment.

I understand it is a five year contract that we're looking at. But when we're looking at ensuring that all types of farmers and food producers could participate and benefit from this program, $100,000 might price out some of our small or medium sized farms.

So can you explain why you think we need to move that to $100,000 and if there's any support for an adjustment to some- somewhere more manageable in the middle. I- I understand that $250 is really small for a five year contract.

Yes, that was my major concern. If an agency not deal with needed to make a small purchase, a one time purchase of produce, they're- they're locked into this contract for five years. If we do want to lower the threshold, this is not on a per year basis though.

So we're looking at what would we be considering, 50,000 per year for five years or is it 100,000 per year for five years? So I wanted to make sure that it doesn't fall into this small purchase threshold, which is the value of the contract, not a per year value. 100,000 shouldn't. So there's two things.

It's the mandatory five years and 100,000. So basically if you're doing it for five years, 100,000, that's only 20,000 a year.

So are we saying that you're not going to be able to price out a small vendor I would think would appreciate that higher amount knowing that he's got a contract for 20,000 for five years as opposed to, you know, much smaller amount of say $500 over five year period. That would not make a lot of economical sense.

The economic burden, administrative burden for an agency to maintain a contract with such a small dollar value.

Understood. And I- I think the- the- the Department of Education, if for this example we're looking at the farm to school program for purchasing, we would hope that we would purchase more for a- from a farmer for that extended period of time. But if that farmer only does have one commodity, we want to be flexible.

We don't want the department to get stuck in parceling, which unless we move the other met- if we move the other measure and this measure, I see the $100,000 making sense. But right now on the small purchasing level, the DOE still is stuck at that lower threshold. Right. And I know we're dealing with that in ano- another measure.

But you know, one- one thing from the USDA perspective is we looked up what a- what a family or small farm definition looks like again to be equitable in this process.

And the definition states, and I will read it word for word, USDA defines a farm as any place that produced and sold or normally would have produced and sold at least $1,000 of agricul- agricultural products during a given year.

USDA uses acres of crops and head of livestock to determine if a place would sales of less than 100,000 could normally produce and sell at least that amount. So what my recommendation is we adjust the threshold to $5,000. That would be the presumption it would be 1,000 a year.

Again, we want to give some flexibility as the department scales up and the presumption is it- it might be able to meet that $1000 threshold, but we want to give as many tools in the toolbox as possible. Is that an acceptable adjustment?

I think it is an acceptable adjustment if we change the language from shall to may.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes. Representative Perruso.

Department of Education, please. Mr. Kakaka--

Good morning.

Kakesako, thank you for joining us. So my question for you folks is, you know, I have a dream, right, about decentralizing and regionalizing farm to school.

And I'm wondering if, you know, this measure combined with the next, if you think that there's a possibility of putting in place at least the procurement infrastructure or some of the necessary procurement infrastructure to decentralize this procurement down to the CAS level. Is that something the department is looking at or.

Because I know that, you know, some of our islands have resources, other islands do not, but they don't have enough of those resources to feed the whole state. So that's really like the thinking around regionalization. And are you folks doing work in that area so as to take advantage of this kind of legislation?

Yes. So short answer is yes, we are looking at decentralizing to a degree, but not all the way down to the CAS level. We are- We're not wanting to put the burden of with a lot of the requirements for USDA and making sure your meals are USDA reimbursable.

It's very difficult for a CAS to be able to do all of that paperwork. So we're not wanting to go down to that level, but definitely looking at a regional level to see--

But don't you have- Doesn't the school food services branch have school production kitchen supervisors that are situated. You should have 12 or 13 of them that are situated at the CAS level. And aren't those folks equipped to do that kind of work?

They are equipped to do parts of that. But when it comes to all the paperwork and the menu planning and all- all that, we are working as a- at from both at the state level and with- with those members to- to figure out our menus. But the CAS do have a lot already on their plate and we're not.

Yeah, no, I wouldn't ask my CAS to do that.

I'm saying there's already a person who does that work who is responsible for that work.

Yes. Yes.

Correct. There are people that do that. So we are, like I said, we are looking at- looking at a regional method of doing this as well.

Excellent. Thank you so much.

You made my day.

Yep.

Ken, just one more quick follow up.

Sure.

Since we have you. Since we talked about the SPOs adjustments and proposed amendments, does that seem like an acceptable middle ground for an amendment to this measure?

With the $5,000 financial adjustment, there was the price adjustment clause so that if prices change, the contracts have that flexibility as well as changing that shall to may, as Representative Perruso asked, how does that sound?

Sounds good, I think. Yeah, sounds good.

Thank you, Ken.

Yep.

Members, any further questions?

If I may?

Yes, Vice Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity. Hunter from Farmers Union. Question for you, sir. You know we're talking about the dollar amount mostly and focusing on that and understanding from the DOE and the procurement. But from the farmer standpoint, representing small farmers, what's your feeling on the timeline of locking into a five year contract?

Is there a better term? Is that a sweet spot? Any thoughts, Hunter?

Thank you for the question, vice chair. Hunter Heaivilin, on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union, I think that the 250 threshold feels exceedingly low for the flexibility that would be pursued by any procurement officer or just imagining the volume of purchasing at $250 that would be required.

So from a smolder perspective, I think that threshold that was discussed, $5,000 seems quite reasonable. Was discussing with my peer in the back, our peanut gallery in the back here about the interpretation of whether that 250 or 5,000 is per annum or over the duration of a five year contract.

And it seems like the belief is maybe it's the latter. So setting that $1000 threshold, I think even if it were slightly higher, that would be acceptable.

I mean running with the bare minimum of the USDA's analysis of a smallholder operation is- is great I think I would say we certainly feel included with the threshold as- as amended.

Okay. What about the timeline? Is there like that five year timeline? I'm just thinking about depending on the crop since there's sometimes in agriculture I feel like we have a certain picture in our heads of what's going to be included. But you may go from beef, to sheep, to, you know, there could be changes in your crops.

I think the department hopefully can get some support to do further communication around the types and volumes of goods that are being purchased or that could be purchased locally. Those market signals would probably have a lag in terms of ensuring that the full volume could, or if not already produced locally, could be produced locally.

And certainly there are hurdles in terms of cost to meet the reimbursements that are currently available.

That being said, there is a federation of regional aggregators that is already in operation across the state through the Hawaii Food Hub Hui, which is a project of the Hawaii Good Food Alliance that already does aggregate from a variety of smallholders.

And I believe should these regional efforts be part of the pathway that we pursue going forward, can be a strong resource to help the DOE meet these mandates.

Okay, thank you.

And Hunter, just to clarify, I think the intention is that new threshold is the baseline to approval to qualify for a long term contract. So whether it was 5,000 to 500,000, 5 million, that's just the base--

Yeah so.

for the allowability. So yeah, I think it covers a lot.

Certainly covers most every producer in the state. So. Yeah.

Thank you, Hunter. Members, any further questions? Seeing none. We're gonna move on to the next measure. Vice chair.

Thank you, Chair. HB 1187. Let me turn my page to there. Oh, here we go. Thank you. Relating for procurement phases in a ban on state departments administratively attached and agencies for purchasing imported flowers and leis. And we have a couple testifiers. State Procurement Office on Zoom.

Good morning again, Chair, Vice chairs, Members of the Committee, Bonnie Kahakoi. We stand on our written testimony, just providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. And then Hawaii Farm Bureau in person.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Representative Perruso. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony in support. We did provide some comments. Again, we are in support of this. We should be using locally produced, locally grown flowers and other plant products.

We did have some concern that whether or not tea leaf or kukui is included, but I'm reading the bill again, it appears those are included. We want to just make sure that we are providing the resources and support for our flower growers to help them increase production so that there is a supply. Because the last thing we want is no lei or no flower arrangements.

So again, other policies that are being pushed forward to support agriculture, we need to consider. Again, making sure that we have access to affordable land, affordable water, addressing labor issues, biosecurity, not for this one, but food safety for other products.

And so again, we need to make sure that the farmers have the ability to scale up so that we aren't importing so much flowers, especially for lei. But also we need to consider making sure that the flowers and the plant products that we are using are affordable. Again, it needs to be about economics also, and that's why we're importing so much because of the cost of production for our local flowers and plant products for these particular things that we're talking about. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. Hunter Heaivilin on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We'll stand in strong support of this measure. We view it as being an accompaniment to recent efforts across the state that have been seeking to support lei flower growers. And as the longtime agricultural policy analyst Wu-Tang Clan had put it, you must protect your neck. And if there is to be a way, let it be a local lei. Thank you.

Okay, that was a beautiful conclusion to our testimony. Is there any other testifiers in, in person or on Zoom? Okay. Seeing none. Chair, members, any questions? None from me. We'll be moving on to HB 110 HD1. Relating to local agricultural products. Modify certain benchmark goals and timeline for the Department of Education to provide locally sourced agriculture and food products.

Currently effective July 1, 3000. Okay, so first to testify in person, we have Hawaii Department of Education. Thank you. And next, Hawaii Department of Agriculture. And then Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair. We'll stand on our written testimony in support.

Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Vice Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau stands on its written testimony in support.

All right. And Hawaii Public Health Institute. No Hawaii Public Health Institute? Okay. That's all our testifiers. Is there any other testifiers who'd like to discuss this measure or make comment on Zoom? Nope. Seeing none. Any questions? Representative Perruso, please.

I have a question for the Farmers Union. First of all, you didn't finish your testimony.

I didn't finish my testimony? It was the only one that I had to submit. So my apologies.

No, but I wanted to ask you about your testimony because it raised good points and you mentioned the concerns about the language shift from produce to food. And having just finished looking at the definition of local food In House Bill 812, I think that to me is a pretty solid definition that we could be working with.

And I think your concern is that we would be able to kind of game the system. Or departments. Departments would never do that, but they might accidentally game the system by using things that are only half from Hawaii and then comboed with something else to provide an appearance of locally sourcing.

So we certainly wouldn't believe a Department would willfully do so.

But market actors, I believe once the definition has been broadened to incorporate processing costs and then the measurement has shifted from product to total cost, means that you could decrease the volume of local products that you incorporate, increase the cost of your processing and amend with imported goods and still be progressing us towards this benchmark without actually making the primary progress that we were pursuing.

So for example, if you had consolidated your holdings across meat processing in the state, decreased the cost you paid for head, increase the cost you charged for processing, that increased cost would then be marked by say, our Department of Education, should it be tallying local purchase as progress when in actuality ranchers could be receiving less per pound and the actual volume of local goods that are making it into our schools could be decreased.

So it's a significant concern.

I believe a Bill in previous years we had introduced that was focused on single ingredient products to try and clarify that when we are seeking to make progress towards these goals, that we can be certain that the progress we are making is true and we can be certain that the benefits that accrue from that progress are our rural farms and families.

So I mean, I think that we are doing more work around value added processing and I think there's been more attention to state investment in processing, meat processing and other kinds of processing. But I'm wondering if you know how to.

I guess I'm curious about the language that would help us clean this up and create stronger guardrails against that kind of possibility. Because I want, I mean, our outcomes to be authentically moving us in the direction of food sovereignty.

And so, I mean, we've seen in other cases where, you know, macadamias, for example, or coffee, we have all these spaces in which the processing piece allows a lot of importation and to kind of create a false sense of Hawaii production.

So maybe it's not this measure, maybe it's another measure, maybe we come back to it next year. But is there a way that you think this Bill could be amended to strengthen the guardrails?

Well, in the absence of a complete testimony, it's possible that whatever was cut off from mine had all of those answers perfectly laid out. I guess that it wasn't quite the case, but we'd be happy to work with this Committee to review some of those previous bills and provide updated language.

That being said, I want to highlight that we support the processing industry. It is not intending to malign. It is a critical component of our food system. Across the state, however, the goals as written really shift and modify who benefits from the pursuit of these goals.

And when we only count calories and volumes, not livelihoods and who benefits, we risk shifting these subsidies and shifting the benefit of state market power to not those who have long already, I don't want to say suffered but not benefited from the largesse of backing from the state, but have pursued under their own will and determination.

And we view this as a critical opportunity for state market power to support the diversity of producers at various sizes across the state.

Thank you. I defer to the Chair. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you. That was a great explanation. We'll be moving. Is there any other testifiers on this? I just wanted to make sure nobody else had additional comments.

We're moving on to HB 328, HD 1, relating to school meals. Requires the Department of Education to authorize and facilitate complex areas for individual public schools to form their own farm to school meal programs through partnerships to meet the local farm to school meal goal of 30% of food served in a school to consist of locally sourced products by 2030.

Allows the Department of Education to establish a plant based meal program no later than the 26-27 school year. And our, we had 64 in support here, zero in opposition, with two comments. The first to testify in person is State Department of Education. Thank you. Next we have the Hawaii Farmers Union. Thank you. Next we have the Hawaii State Teachers Association in person. On Zoom? Nobody? Okay. Hawaii Public Health Institute. Must have sent out the wrong room. Greenpeace Hawaii on Zoom.

Aloha. Good morning. Dave Mulinix. Thank you, Chair Kahaloa, for hearing this important legislation. My name is Dave Mulinix, co-founder of Greenpeace Hawaii. On behalf of our thousands of members and supports statewide, we stand in strong support of HB 328. I became a vegetarian back in high school, and there was nothing for me to eat when I was in for school lunch. That was 60 years ago. In that time we landed on the Moon.

We all have computers in our homes, and everyone is walking around with the Star Trek communicator cell phone. And still here in Hawaii, vegan and vegetarian students can't get a plant based meal. And they have testified at the Legislature that they are going hungry because there's nothing for them to eat in their school lunch.

The target for the Department of Education is 30% food served in public schools consist of locally produced products. DOE said they can't meet the 30% goal because they can't meet the protein component of the meal if it is locally sourced. And that seems a bit not correct.

The healthy plate and school lunch consists protein is only 25% of the plate. Fruits and vegetables are supposed to be 50% of the plate, which we have plenty of those here in Hawaii. Whole whole grains can include ulu and sweet potato. Also plenty here in Hawaii.

Farmers said just tell us what you want us to grow and we'll grow it for you. The DOE use excuse is equivalent to say the dog eating my homework. It's past time for our vegan and vegetarian students to be able to have a plant based meal. Please pass this important legislation. Don't let these kids go hungry anymore. Thank you so much for hearing this legislation.

Thank you. Okay, our next next testifier is Leila Wright, individual on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Kahaloa and Vice Chair Kusch and Members of the Committee. My name is Leila, and I am testifying in favor of the bill, HB 328, HD 1. The reason I am in support of this bill is because I have personally witnessed the transformation that takes place when you educate children on healthy food choices and introduce them to growing their own.

My mother taught children how to garden in urban environments where natural spaces were very limited. And in the past few years I taught herbalism classes to middle school children in Hilo. This hands on approach opened the minds of our youth and put them more in touch with where our food comes from and how much work goes into caring for the land. Ultimately, their interest and appreciation for healthy food grew. And currently Hawaii imports approximately 90% of its food.

And supporting local farmers with programs like Aina Pono will boost our local economy and the overall health of our keiki. The bill clearly states that Aina Pono has already been proven to be a success in school districts like Kohala and Mililani. So we have evidence that providing more farm to school programs will be beneficial. In closing, my support of HB 328, HD1 is rooted in the belief that it will help reach the goal that at least 30% of school meals will be locally sourced by Hawaii's own farmers. Mahalo nui.

Thank you for your testimony. That concludes our testimony. Is there any others that would like to testify on this bill? Seeing none. Chair, Members, any questions? Okay, moving on to HB 497, HD 1, relating to the Hawaii Child Nutrition Programs.

Transfers the Hawaii Child Nutrition Programs Agency from the Department of Education to the Department of Agriculture and codifies its establishment. Establishes a grant program to be administered by the agency to support the funding of certain initiatives for the state's public schools. Appropriates funds for grants. Okay. First in testimony we have Hawaii State Department of Education.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brian Hallett, Department of Education. The Department stands on its written testimony and comments.

Okay, thank you. Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Aloha, Chair. The Department of Agriculture stands on its written comments.

Thank you. And then Hawaii Farmers Union in support in person.

Stand on our written testimony in support.

Copy that. Hawaii Public Health Institute in support in person. Almost. Okay. There's no other testifiers in person. Would anybody else like to speak on this bill? Anybody on Zoom? We had ten in support, zero in opposition, two comments by the two departments. Any questions, Committee and Chair?

Yes, I have a question and a comment? Sorry. For the Department of Education. Hi. So I guess I'm just confused because it's my understanding that HCNP provides oversight of the School Food Services Branch from the federal perspective. Is that an accurate understanding?

Oversight and technical assistance? Yes.

Yes. Okay. It's not been lost on anybody that over the past few years there hasn't been really positive interaction or engagement or like a mutually beneficial relationship between School Food Services Branch and HCNP. So that technical assistance and support.

You know, I am thinking back to maybe a year and a half ago, maybe two years, a story in Civil Beat about federal funds being lost because of a disagreement about how or not being able to be expended because the Department disagreed with how HCNP was moving forward with federal funds, something to that effect.

So I mean, I think that there is already, there are already issues around the extent to which their support is welcomed and kind of... Yeah, I guess the best word is welcomed by School Food Services Branch. So that piece I wanted to kind of put to the side. I am most concerned about the oversight piece.

And it seems to me, I mean, just structurally, that structurally inconsistent to have the body that is supposed to provide oversight of a particular branch located within the same Department and subject to the same leadership of that Department. So I'm wondering, I mean, I read your testimony, but how would you address my concerns? I don't think your testimony really addresses my concerns directly.

I think to the first point, you know, the past, which is the past. I don't know that this change would have made a difference one way or the other to move it to another Department. And I would also suggest that there are a number of areas of accountability within the Department that exist within the current structure. So I don't think it's inherently impossible to have accountability all within one Department.

I just feel like this is one particular area in which the Department is really struggling, alongside transportation. And I just wonder about, I think this is, I see this as a legitimate effort to strengthen oversight and to separate powers or separate that oversight and move it away from being under the control of the very person they're supposed to provide oversight of. So I recognize that it's possible. Right. But I do think there's a logical problem for me anyway. So I was just wondering if you could address that in ways that were not already covered in your testimony.

I guess I would add that there is regular communication between the Child Nutrition Program and the Western Regional Office with the federal Western Regional Offices. The program has tools at its disposal to enforce or require compliance, and they exercise those. So it's, I think there is a history. It hasn't been a perfect history, but there is a mechanism that exists. Other than that, nothing more to add than what's in the testimony.

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none. We are going to move... And I just wanted to point out there was support 10, 0 in opposition, and 2 comments.

Moving on to HB773 relating to agriculture, appropriates funds for grant specialist positions to assist farmers and ranchers in meeting the requirements to receive grants offered by the United States Department of Agriculture, state counties and private entities. Okay, so we have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Well, Chair of the Department of Agriculture supports this measure.

Thank you. Ulupono Initiative.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Representative Mariah Yoshizu. On behalf of Ulupono Initiative. Based on a preliminary search of our fiscal year 25 federal funding opportunities, the HDOA has identified more than 22 million in potential awards.

This along with the 6 million that they currently manage on a recurring year to year basis totals almost 30 million that we can bring into our state. Without this additional capacity for grant specialists, we risk leaving millions in federal dollars on the table.

Investing in these positions can yield a high return on investment and bring long term benefits as we look to uplift our farmers and ranchers. Thank you so much for hearing this.

Thank you. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you Vice Chair, Chair, Representative Perruso. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. I have a written testimony in support. Was going to stand in support but just wanted to emphasize how critical this need is with the New Administration with the potential reduction in funds to philanthropic or other types of grants.

So we really need to grab what's available out there and maximize those federal dollars to support our agricultural sector here in Hawaii. My understanding is the current grant specialist right now is doing an amazing job. And so this bill I believe suggests positions. So not just one. We need more positions.

We need more people, professionals bringing in those outside dollars into Hawaii. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you 100%. Hawaii Farmers Union. Okay, Local Food Coalition on zoom.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Representative Perusso. Myongo on behalf. Of the Local Food Coalition in strong support as evidenced by Ulupono's great testimony grant writers are essential tools. They serve as a catalyst in assisting local farmers and ranchers to pursue these federal funding opportunities.

Ultimately it's driving the monies down from the Federal Government multiply effect to Hawaii's agricultural economy. So we ask for your strong support and thank you very much.

Thank you. That's the end of our zoom and in person testimony. Would anybody else like to testify on this measure? Committee, Chair, any questions? Okay. I have a question for Department of Agriculture.

Good morning. Cedric Gates for the Department of Agriculture.

Thank you, Mr. Gates. Just quick question was what was like a dollar value you could offer for the two positions you think are required for this grant program?

I believe that would be something that our subject matter expert would have an answer for you on that. I can get back to you with that via email or follow up after. But I'm hearing from Hawaii Farm Bureau 100,000.

Is that just to clarify, is that each position or for the two positions? Thank you. There we go. We have an answer.

So it's 200k.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And we're going to be moving on. Just a second here. I just wanted to report that for those listening in, for 773, we had eight in support, zero in opposition and zero in comments.

So moving on to HB 776 relating to agricultural support, establishes within the Department of Agriculture the Hawai'i Agricultural Transportation Assistance Program to consist of a reimbursement program and a grant program to assist certain farmers and livestock producers with transportation costs for agricultural producers, input supplies and production and distribution of agricultural commodities. Repor- Requires reports to the Legislature.

Okay, so we have 10 in support on this, zero in opposition with one comment, and our first to testify in person is Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, vice chair, chair, Representative Perruso. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony in support. How we absolutely support this based off of the USDA's program. We do want to highlight. We do highlight it in our testimony.

Again, transportation costs affect our farmers and ranchers, but there's an additional impact to our neighbor island farmers and ranchers.

So in the past, we've come forward with kind of focusing on additional resources for our neighbor and farmers and ranchers who if a lot of the inputs that come in to Honolulu, they ship it over to the neighbor islands so that additional costs of transportation and if their market is here on Oahu, they have to ship it back so they have an additional cost.

So we also want to be mindful on our neighbor islands and sometimes the unfair competitive advantage that our Oahu farmers have over neighbor islands. We did want to note that we didn't see a cap in the grant program. We saw the $8,000 cap in the reimbursement program.

So I'm not sure if that's going to be worked out through Department of Agriculture. And also we didn't see any appropriation. There's no part. There's no section for an appropriation.

So I don't know if it's just establishing the special fund and then coming back next year for an appropriation, but we'd like to see the appropriation into the special fund so that we can start implementing these two programs immediately.

Again, transportation cost is something that drives up the cost of production, which ultimately results in higher cost to our consumers here for local food, feed, fiber, fuel and floriculture from agriculture. So thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next testifier we have Hawaii Farmers Union. This is on HB 776, so that we stay on.

Thank you, vice chair, chair, committee member. Hawaii Farmers Union stands on its written testimony in support and seeks amendment to include food hubs which as prior discussed are a critical mechanism for particularly smallholder operations, but really farms of all sizes to access markets.

We believe that particularly for small entities that may not be already engaged in Inter island transportation, that food hubs often perform that service for them. So we would recommend the inclusion of food hubs and maybe some equitable distribution of volume to private or individual farm operations. And food hubs as their distributor type.

Great, thank you. On Zoom we have Watanabe Floral, not present. Okay. And next we have On Zoom Hawaii Food Industry Association. Oh, okay. That's right. Thank you. There's no other testifiers. Would anybody else like to testify? Oh, here we go. Chamber of Commerce.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee, apologies, our testimony did get submitted late, but we'll double check to make sure it got received. We'll stand on our written testimony in support. We recently launched a 2030 blueprint for Hawaii which is an economic action plan that was done through a independent study.

And one of the areas of opportunities to build a much more sustainable economy is to support 21st century AG. And sorry, this is Sherry Manor with the Chamber of Commerce. And as Brian from Hawaii Farm Bureau mentioned, the neighbor islands do have a disadvantage due to the transportation costs.

So we believe that this bill would definitely support our local farmers on the neighbor islands and help address economic growth as well as sustainability. So on that note, we stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Aloha, chair. Cedric Gates from the Department of Agriculture. I believe we submitted testimony on this measure. We are going to stand on that testimony in support here for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Okay, is there any other testifiers? I'm sorry, we didn't have you listed in person, Cedric. Any other testifiers? Questions? Chair?

Quick question for the Chamber of Commerce, Hawaii.

Aloha. Hi.

Just checking on to the Hawaii Farm Bureau's testimony and we were trying to ensure and Farmers Union on equitability of funding and a lot of testimony came in from the neighbor islands is there- We were looking at how to define kind of support for rural communities.

And what I'm hearing in testimony today and that kind of illuminated in written testimony is that maybe as we're building this we should start with neighbor island only and define this to reducing transportation costs and burdens starting on all the neighbor islands versus making it a statewide program.

So I just wanted to see what you thought about that because that is an adjustment. But it just came up in some of the testi- testimony that maybe that's one way we don't have a price cap on it either. So maybe that's one way to start this kind of price program.

So I wanted to know what the intentions were to do that.

Yeah, well personally from someone who is from the neighbor island, from your island can certainly recognize some of the disadvantages and the additional burden for our local businesses, including farms, farmers. And so I think it's a good starting point because transportation is a huge factor in the overall cost of doing business. So. Yeah.

Thank you, Sherry.

Thank you. Hawaii Farmer- Farm Bureau.

Brian Miyamoto on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Bureau, Union of Agriculture. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Thank you vice chair. I just wanted to comment on that question. Maybe because this is a two part program or there's two programs within the bill, maybe the reimbursement program could be for all producers statewide.

Again, we don't want to leave out our Oahu producers and that's not the point that we're trying to make and then start the grant program as a pilot program focusing on our neighbor island and rural communities.

We do have rural communities here on Oahu, but maybe we'll go and say the grant program is going to be a neighbor island agricultural reimbursement or not reimbursement, transportation grant program and then we'll go from there and kind of see what those outcomes are, see what those needs are. Also.

Again, we do acknowledge as in our testimony, our written testimony says our neighbor islands farmers and ranchers in somewhat of a disadvantage, not only the additional transportation cost, but it failed to mention a lot of times the fuel costs for their vehicles, for their trucks are higher on the neighborhoods also.

So yes, if we could maybe focus with the grant program that might be a solution that the legislature would consider. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Thank you. Anybody else that I can trash their organization's name? No. Anybody else would like to testify? Any other questions from committee? I- I have some questions on this one. So and- and listening to testimony today- today. Let's see is Department of Agriculture, please.

Vice Chair Kusch, Chair Kahaloa and Rep. Perusso. Matthew Loke, Department of Ag.

Thank you sir. My question is, so do you have like a- I felt like this was bill is kind of loosely defined. I get it. And listening today now it sounds like it's more shaped towards helping inner island, you know, bridge the Inter Island shipping fees. But the way it's written, as I understood this, it's pretty broad.

It doesn't have a lot of definitions that would, you know, kind of keep it tight. There's a lot of room to move around in it. And is there any like a threshold that would qualify a disadvantaged farmer? I guess online on page four they give a definition. Let's see. These are for my notes. Okay.

A geographically disadvantaged farmer or livestock producer means a farmer or livestock producer located operating the State of Corps incurs a blank amount of costs due to their geographical location. And I paraphrased a little bit. You can kind of understand that's a pretty ambiguous word salad.

So I'm just wondering if you have any ideas how to tighten that up to define that.

Yes, I believe that the definition was adopted from USDA way back in 2005 that was to facilitate the so called disbursement of transportation fees to disadvantaged areas, particularly for Hawaii, Guam, Western Samoa and Puerto Rico. So there was a federal thing and I think we are trying to expand it to the state level now.

Okay, so it was primarily to do with shipping.

Right. And I think shipping is really important and in particular agriculture producers because we in Hawaii, we are all consumers, we all have to pay for transportation costs whether we like it or not. But for agricultural producers, for farmers and livestock, they have a so called double payment.

One, they have to pay for their input costs because a lot of input costs like fertilizer all comes from somewhere else. And secondly, to get your products to market, they have also to pay for the shipping costs. So they're getting double payment for that.

So that's why this bill is important that we make sure that they are able to thrive in their businesses and that they get so called relief for some of the higher costs.

Sure. Evening out the playing field. So would maybe a better definition be tightening it up to shipping costs versus because right now you sounds like just driving from Kau to Hilo could include your truck's amortization, fuel, maintenance costs, insurance. You know, like it's pretty open what it could mean. Right.

I'm thinking because right now to qualify for a program interstate and to come up with a rate, we also need to qualify how much of agricultural products are shipped from one island to another. And at this point in time I think there's a weakness in our system.

We need to have better data to be able to track what ag products stay on the same island and what volume and dollar value are exported to neighbor islands and beyond.

Okay, well good news. There's a bill to address that coming up. Thank you. Stay tuned.

Thank you. And Vice Chair I think because of the realization that USDA has a definition, maybe we can strengthen the language but maybe Hawaii Farmers Union has a comment. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you Chairs, Committee. I would offer some of the word salad I think I may have had a hand in part of this is designed to try and support or reinforce already existing effort at the USDA by providing additional support.

I think we as a sector appreciate the breadth of coverage that it affords because of the particularly high costs the Department of Agriculture highlighted if reporting or other approaches are viewed as necessary.

I think looking to that existing USDA program and having similar reporting requirements, maybe even exactly similar reporting requirements could ensure both that users of the USDA program can easily access this one and anyone who is unaware of the USDA but participates in this program could readily participate in that additional subsidy. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other questions? Chair? Okay, moving on. We are going to HB 782. 782 relating to agriculture establishes within the Department of Agriculture a working group to review and make recommendations on amending or repealing unnecessary or obsolete laws pertaining to agriculture. And our we have four in support, zero in opposition and one agency comment.

Hawaii Farm Bureau in person.

Thank you, vice chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support.

Hawaii Farmers Union in person.

Thank you, vice chair. Because we can imagine no greater act than combing through legislative and administrative law. We would like to formally request for Hawaii Farmers Unions to join this effort but also to highlight the necessity that this not be just a slash and burn effort. Right.

So the approaches have been pursued in jurisdictions and- and even statewide on the mainland that are using a take called zero based regulation that seeks to eliminate all regulatory function or set caps in some cases on even the amount of verbiage allowed within legislation.

And as I've said in previous testimony elsewhere, as the department has regularly avowed itself to be a regulatory agency, we fear that it would be left with nothing to do. But we again would like to seek participation in this working group. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to testify on this measure? Please. Department of Agriculture.

Yes, chair, I believe the department submitted testimony with comments on this measure and we're here for any questions.

Okay, got it. Alrighty. Anybody else like to submit testimony? Seeing none, we're going to move on to- oh, I'm sorry. Questions.

I have a question for the Department of Ag.

Please. Thank you.

Thank you. So I- I think I echo Hunter's concerns and I'm wondering if the department has already started to talk about, you know, the regulations that protect, I would say, public health and safety around the agricultural space and then also kind of, I'll share with you my district's context.

We have regulations and laws, but they are not adequately enforced sometimes. And so then there's a lot of community upset and also some damage to the community. And then my- my worry is that if we are creating a working group to, you know, create zero based regulation.

Is that the approach that's being taken here from your understanding or is it a more, you know, scalpel like approach?

Earl Yamamoto, Department of Agriculture. Absolutely no idea. But I can speculate this seems to be more targeted if you look at the three- the three examples of possible obsolete or unnecessary things that we do. Restrictions on leases of state agricultural land that prohibit a residence on the property. Number two, restrictions on leases of state agricultural land that prohibit--

I mean, I- I see it, yeah. But--

And I understand that's the focus, but. And I guess I should go back and talk to the author, the introducer of the bill. But I am concerned about broad application and in the language of the bill, it doesn't say that it will be restricted specifically and only to these topics. So that's my concern.

So I guess it's a issue for further conversation. But I was wondering what the department's analysis of the bill was. So if you don't really know, then that's also fine.

Yeah, it- it- it's all a matter of definition up front. And this working group, 11 members without any clear definitions. If it's left up to the working group, kind of depending on its composition, you know, it can turn out to be a witch hunt. All kinds of bad stuff can come out, maybe some good.

And that's why we're in- in testimony. We're recommending instead of this working group commission, the legislature, commission, study by a neutral party to- to undertake to get the data, you know, to look at things.

I saw that and I don't know what the chair will decide to do. But thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it.

Any other further questions? Okay. Moving on to HB 968, relating to agriculture. Requires the Department of Agriculture to establish a healthy soils program, requires an annual report to the Legislature, and appropriate funds. We had 45 in support of this measure, zero in opposition, and one comment. Starting with the Department of Agriculture in person. Thank you. And next we have Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair. Hawaii Farmers Union stands on our written testimony and strong support of this measure. We have advocated for measure or one, this measure or one very similar to it for the past handful of years and view this as a critical opportunity for the Department of Agriculture to coalesce existing programs under one roof.

So currently we have a permanent compost reimbursement program. We have successfully passed a cover crop pilot program. There's a measure later in this hearing that would actually create a temporary pilot for agriculture and climate resilience, I believe.

And we view a variety of conservation agricultural practices as being a key opportunity for the Department to route resources, to support producers, to pursue good land management and to subsidize those decisions to internalize environmental costs. For those reasons, we hope that we see this measure move forward.

Though the ADC, now that they're no longer here to defend themselves, could be another opportunity to put this measure and house it somewhere else. In previous hearing on the Senate side, they had expressed openness to this and the reticence on the part of the Department over a number of years, despite there being FTEs or additional funding put in. I highlight as a concern and hopefully not one that would keep this measure from moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Vice Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support.

All righty. That is all I have for our in person. Is there any Zoom testimony? Anybody else would like to testify on this? Questions, Chair? Otherwise I will, if you're reticent. Okay. My question is for the Department of Agriculture. Sorry, Hunter, I was just using your word. That was good. Good word. Thank you.

You know, this bill, the intent, I get it. It's a great bill, as Hawaii Farmers Union pointed out. But it also seemed, again, kind of ambiguous in areas. And not being a soil scientist, you know, forgive me if, if I'm not seeing the details. But like, is there definitions to define an unhealthy soil and then compensate someone to bringing it to a defined healthy state?

There were a number of... Earl Yamamoto, Department of Agriculture. There are a number of attempts, not specific to this bill, but related to looking at determining a baseline of sequestered carbon, something desirable, what is possible, how much it would cost.

But those efforts, those separate efforts, when, I guess when the grant funding ran out, the work came to a stop. There's the one institution that maybe two. One at Office of Planning that may be kind of more abundant. Section 225p for the Greenhouse Gas Sequestration Task Force, I believe, is one.

And the Department of Land and Natural Resources, I think, has that. There's a pilot program, I think it may, funding expires this year. Leah Laramie, she probably can respond to it, too. But the responsibilities are kind of similar in terms of looking at what the, what the goal is. Maybe the approach is a little bit different.

This one over here, I've looked at this repeatedly over, I don't know, five years already. Different proponents, same language. They throw in some money and all of this, but the devil's in the details. And without the definitions and all these, the numbers that need to be generated in order for a program to stand, to be stood up, that these things need to exist first before we get, you know, fancy and start offering farmers cost reimbursements and other things.

Okay, yeah. That was my take. And kind of part two of that question, on page two, line seven through nine, there's how would you structure and issue awards to farmers who are building? Let's say we got those definitions from those other groups you were just saying. How would you structure awards to a farmer?

Like, what would that look like? There's this section here. It says, subject to available funding, issue awards and other financial incentives to implement farm management practices that contribute to healthy soils. And I'm just trying to get a picture of what that might look like from an administrative standpoint.

I never got that far in analysis. I see where we addressed it in testimony, but I was just caught up with what has to exist first before we get to that point. So I didn't get. I have no idea what that administrative burden, no doubt a burden, would be like. I have no idea.

Okay, thank you. Did you have an idea? Yeah. Farmers Union. Thank you.

Sure. So, Hunter Heaivilin on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. This bill is structured in a similar way to California's Healthy Soils Program and also variety of programs nationally at the state level. So the awards language is focused on existing subsidies and programs to facilitate the adoption of conservation agricultural practices. When I say those words, they're intentional.

The Natural Resource Conservation Service of the USDA has already outlined in its Field Office Technical Guide for Pacific Islands Areas a variety of practices in some ways already assessed based off of greenhouse gas emissions benefits, as well as previous study by the Greenhouse Gas Sequestration Task Force and other entities that I believe much of this Information is readily available.

That being said, if creating a statewide soil health assessment is beyond the pale, and I do believe it would require resources and conceivably expertise that the Department does not apparently have in house. Striking that from this and focusing instead on the distribution of grants, awards, et cetera, and the pursuit of additional funding to support that type of distribution I think would be a reasonable effort.

It's one that numerous other states, and so many that we've already organized ourselves into a national healthy soil policy network, have been pursuing for quite some time. And so I believe it to be well housed within the Department. And it is an opportunity for the Department to bring together existing programs, and that's where the award language comes.

So take the compost program, which currently has moved year over year to different ports within the Department of Agriculture, and as a result, I believe has frustrated participation by producers who, depending on the year, may have had to go figure out for themselves who was a certified compost operation.

So in this previous year, as it moved to yet another part of the DOA, I had furnished the Department with a list of certified compost programs, but that did not make it onto their website. So this left producers who are seeking to participate in the program without any understanding of where to go. An additional issue with that effort is that that subsidy has now been, say... Again, this gets to the point from earlier about who benefits from these. As a result of that subsidy, Hawaiian Earth Products has doubled its cost.

And so without a program that is specifically focused on these, what we have seen is a subsidy that was supposed to support farmers has now gone to a processor yet again. And so we believe that having an entity or a Department, a place for these efforts to live is of critical importance to ensuring that the benefits that this body believes farmers should have are actually getting to them.

Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. Any other questions? Please.

Hunter, or Hawaii Farmers Union.

Hunter, Farmers Union here.

Question about one of your previous statements about this bill being heard in the Senate and a conversation about where this program should be placed, and you did indicate that it should be the Department of Agriculture. But can you speak a little bit about other potential alternatives, whether that is through the ADC, or would this be something better served in CTAHR? I'm not sure.

As currently set up, the subsidy programs for these types of practices are within, mostly within the Department of Agriculture. So the compost reimbursement program is within the Department of Agriculture. The cover crop pilot program, which I don't know has ever made it out of administrative rule development, is also within the Department of Agriculture.

DLNR has its own approach that's Carbon Smart Land Management Program that has shifted over years to try and understand who it's trying to serve. Originally it was focused on larger landowners. And when actually this bill was first introduced, that program was also being developed at the same time.

And we tried to kind of coalesce, but opinions differed on how to go about it. So we have two efforts. Right. But in practice, we view this as being important to put in the language that producers use in language that benefits them. And so a healthy soils program living within the Department gives, I believe, the Department an opportunity to signal to producers we can be a resource for you. Not just a regulatory, but, you know, lambasting as many may experience it.

That being said, ADC did express support and does seem to be taking a dogged approach to pursuing a variety of programs to support the industry. That may shift over time as leadership and oversight does. So while we support whoever wants to take it, I think wherever it does live should bring these existing programs with it. Right. So move the compost reimbursement program, the funding, the resources that go to that, to wherever this program ends up.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, with no further questions, we're going to move on to HB984 relating to agricultural loans updates the agricultural loan program by lowering interest rates, increasing and standardizing loan limits and reducing the number of credit denials. Authorizes the agricultural loan program to issue lines of credit.

Creates a new class of loans to encourage large scale agriculture of import replacement crops grown for the farm to state program appropriates funds. Alrighty. We had seven in support, zero in opposition and one comment. First to comment in person is Department of Agriculture.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The Department stands on its written testimony in strong support of this measure. The Department would like to note that this measure is very important to assisting our local farmers with getting capital. We will be here for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next in person we have Ulupono initiative. Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau in person.

Thank you. Vice Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau stands with it's written testimony in support.

Thank you. And next we have Hawai'I Farmers Union in person.

Thank you Vice Chair. Hunter Heaivilin on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union, will stand in our written testimony in support of the intent of this measure, but highlighting a variety of our amendments that we believe would strengthen this bill. The inclusion of food hubs and class E loans.

The insurance that there are dedicated loan categories for small and mid sized producers I believe is also of critical importance. We seem to be again confusing calories with livelihoods. Who benefits from these programs is of a critical lens by which we should measure their impact and their efficacy.

For that reason having modifying smaller collateral loan requirements and ensuring, as I said, the distribution of loan funds across a variety of sizes. We believe agriculture of various sizes is important to the state but would push back on the an aspect included in the preamble that states, you know that writ large is more efficient.

We have a variety of smallholder operations that have found themselves durable over economic change in economic tides that has seen many large operations shutter and leave our shores. And as a result of their participation in our economy over time it has tended to push out smaller and midsize operations.

And so when they do end up leaving where we find ourselves more economically brittle and without ensuring that the support that we are proposing to afford them also reaches our midsize operations, we risk hindering that progress ourselves. Thank you.

Thank you. We don't have anybody else. Anybody on Zoom. Anybody else would like to testify on this measure? Committee Chair. Questions? No questions. Okay.

I will take it from here Vice Chair.

We have our final two measures. Moving on to HB 1393 relating to agricultural statistics requires the Department of Agriculture to revitalize and enhance the agricultural Statistics program to collect data on local agricultural interests appropriates funds. First to testify on this measure is the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Thank you, Chair. The Department of Agriculture stands on its written testimony in strong support.

Thank you. Next we have Ulupono Initiative.

Thank you. We stand on the testimony.

Thank you, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on this written testimony in support.

Thank you, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair. Hawaii Farmers Union stands on its written testimony in support.

Thank you very much. We had seven in support and one with comments. Would anyone else wish to testify on HB 1393? See no other testimony. Members questions? See none. We're going to move on to HB 1450 relating to agricultural climate resiliency.

Establishes a three year climate resilient food systems grant pilot program to be administered by the Department of Agriculture. Requires reports to the legislature and appropriates funds. First to testify on this measure is the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Morning, chair, vice chair and Member Perruso. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development supports this measure.

But I'd also like to add to our testimony that within DBED there is the Agricultural Development Corporation and it has been focusing on creating food hubs which consolidate the high costs of the specialized equipment that support small farmers because they can't afford to invest in those for themselves so I'd like to offer that there is an alternative approach to this as well for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Next Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Aloha chair. The Department of Agriculture stands in strong support of this measure.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support

Thank you. Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you chair. Hawaii Farmers Union stands on its written testimony in support of this measure.

Thank you. We had supportive testimony from the County of Hawaii and the Purple Maya Foundation 8 total in support and an individual as well. Would anyone else wish to testify on HB 1450? Members questions? Seeing none, we're gonna take a short recess before we do decision making, thank you.

We're reconvening the 9:30 AM agenda for the Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. We are now moving to decision making. First measure is HB 428, relating to farm to families. We're moving this measure and recommending to create an House Draft to defect the date to July 1, 3000. Make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

We are going to blank the appropriations. We're also going to adopt the amendment recommendations from the Department of Agriculture, indicating the volume dollar amount category of food purchases. They just want to tighten the language around reporting requirements. So, we think that's a great idea. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 967, relating to sustainable food systems. We want to continue to move this Bill along and create a House Draft 1. We want to defect the date to July 1, 3000. We do want to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

We want to also blank the appropriation amounts and notate them in the Standing Committee Report. We want to remove the FTEs, as recommended by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, and take all of their amendments as well.

We also want to notate in the Standing Committee Report that Hyima asked to participate and would like a position, if this Bill were to move forward. Members, comments or concerns? Seeing one. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 812, relating to agriculture. We want to pass with amendments, and we want to defect the date to July 1, 3000. Make some technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. We do want to take the SPO's Price Adjustment Clause, as written in their testimony, except for the value amount.

We want to amend the value amount from that $250 to $25,000. Also, the DOE recommendations and with the support of the SPO, change the word "shall" to "may." Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1187, relating to procurement. We would like to defect the date on this Bill to July 1, 3000, and make some light technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 110, HD 1, relating to local agricultural prod—products. I'd like to move and pass this as is, but I want to notate the testimony recommendations from the Hawaii Farmers Union. We have some work to continue the conversation on this measure. Members, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 328, HD 1, relating to school meals. Recommendation is to pass as is. Members, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 497, HD 1, relating to the Hawaii Child Nutrition Programs. We are going to create a House Draft 2 just for light technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 773, relating to agriculture. We would like to defect the date to July 1st, 3000, on this Bill. We also want to make technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. We want to blank the FTEs and notate them in the Standing Committee Report, for those two positions.

We also want to note that the appropriation amount of time $200,000, $100,000 for each position, in the Committee Report as well. Members, questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Moving on to HB 776, relating to agricultural support. We would like to create another House Draft and defect the date to July 1, 3000. Make some technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. We are going to blank the reimbursement maximum on Page 5, Lines 19 in Subsection C, and notate that $8,000 in the Standing Committee report.

And we want to take Hawaii Farmers Union recommendations to add food hubs as eligible entities, and we do want to strengthen the language on the "geographically disadvantaged farmer or livestock producer definition" and strengthen it via the USDA's definition. Just for more clarity, we also want to add an appropriation. We think that's necessary.

But add a blank appropriation and we'll let the future committees decide what that needs to look like. Members, any comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to House Bill 782, relating to agriculture. We're going to defect the date to July 1, 3000, make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

We do want to add Hawaii Farmers Union to the list of membership entities and note in the Standing Committee Report to add $100,000 as a recommended number for the appropriation. Members, questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to HB 968, relating to agriculture. This Bill still has some work to be done. I think it's very important and we will continue efforts to strengthen this Bill and make sure that it can be equitably supported amongst all farmers and producers across the state.

So, we want to defect the date to July 1st, 3000, make some tech amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Blank the appropriation amount and notated in the Standing Committee Report. Members, questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 984, relating to agricultural loans. Very important Bill. Let's defect the date to July 1, 3000, and make some tech amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style.

We are taking Hawaii Farmers Union recommendations to include food hubs and Class E Loans to modify the intent of, of the language in the preamble in Section 1. There was a focus on large scale agriculture only.

And so, the language we want to take from a Hawaii Farmers Union's testimony states, "A diverse agricultural sector that includes small and mid-sized farms is essential to Hawaii's food security, economic resilience, and self-sufficiency. Modifications to the state agricultural loan program should ensure equitable access to capital for farmers of all scales, with a focus on enabling sustainable community-based and diversified production."

As noted, line for line, word for word in that testimony. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 1393, relating to agricultural statistics. We're going to move this Bill forward, defect the date to July 1, 3000. Again, make technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Blank the appropriations and the FTEs and notate them in the Standing Committee Report.

OIP had some recommendations in their written testimony, and we are going to adopt those. And then, Hawaii Food Policy Plus made one recommendation to change—update—Section 148 under "Collaboration." It says, "may collaborate" and we're going to change the language to "shall collaborate," just to strengthen the importance of working together on this measure.

Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Last measure on the agenda, HB 1450, relating to agricultural climate resiliency. I recommend we defect the date to July 1, 3000, and make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Blank the appropriations and notate them in the Standing Committee Report. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Seeing no further business on this agenda, this hearing is adjourned.

Aloha, Kakou. Welcome to the hearing for the House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. Today is February—February 7, 2025, and this is the 9:31 AM agenda. This is for decision making only, and we are convening at the Hawaii State Capitol in Room 325.

This is a DM-only agenda, on a short form bill, HB 92, to insert substantive provisions into the shell. There is currently no testimony on this Bill. After the completion of this agenda, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date, at which testimony will then be accepted.

So, we are moving on to DM for HB 92. Title of the Bill is relating to taxation, Chapter 235, Income Tax Law, Part 6, Returns and Payments Administration.

So, Hawaii revised Statute 235-110.91 tax credit for research activities is amended by adding the following language, as used in this section, we're defining "qualified high technology business," means a small business or an agricultural business that conducts more than 50% of its activities in the state and qualified research, and is registered to do business in the state, where defining "qualified research" shall have the same meaning as in Section 41, Subsection D of the Internal Revenue Code.

Qualified research expenses shall have the same meaning as in Section 41-B of the Internal Revenue Code, provided that it shall not include research expenses incurred outside of the state. "Small business" means a company with no more than 500 employees in Hawaii.

Agricultural business means a company that is primarily focused on the development and sale of agricultural products. Chair's recommendation—recommendation is to pass this short form bill with an HD to recommit for future public hearings. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Happy Aloha Friday, everyone. This meeting is now adjourned.