House Standing Committee on Agriculture & Food Systems

Aloha kakahiaka Kakou. Welcome to the hearing on the Committee House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. Good morning everyone. Today is January 29th, 9:30 a.m. and we're convenient in room 325 for our 9:30 a.m. agenda hearing. I'm Chair Kahaloa, the new Chair of this Committee. I'd like to introduce my colleagues that are sitting on this Committee.

I'll let them self introduce.

Good morning. Thank you Chair. Good morning. Vice Chair Matthias Kush, District 1 Hilo, Hāmākua, Hōnokaa.

Oha and good morning. My name is Amy Perruso. I represent house District District 46 which stretches from Waipio Acres out to Kaana Point.

Thank you Members. And just a little bit of housekeeping as we start our Committee and other Members, Representative Lowen, Representative Quinlan and Representative Ward are the other Committee Members. So just a few housekeeping rules. In order to allow as many testifiers as possible, we are going to try to stick to a 2 minute time limit per testifier.

Sorry if some of you are intimidated by that, but we have a lot to go over today because and we're doing that because morning hearings must adjourn prior to our noon floor session or all the measures we've gone over will not be considered.

So please, and if you are joining us via Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. If you are on Zoom, the chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat function only for technical assistance.

If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be able to continue if time permits. Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of any network catastrophic 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 copyrighted images. For those joining us virtually and for everyone, please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds from removal from the hearing without any ability to reach join and please stick to testifying on the specific measure that we have before us. Thank you so much for being here. We're going to go ahead and get started. Our first measure on the agenda is HB 47 related to aquaculture.

Authorizes the Division of Animal Industry and the Department of Agriculture to adopt, amend and repeal rules to develop an assessment and approval process to import and move aquatic livestock in the state requires the aquaculture program to develop a risk based framework for biocontainment standards for the aquatic livestock assessment and approval process makes appropriations.

First to testify today is the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Thank you. Next we have the Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Aloha. Chair, Vice Chair, Representative. So the Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. We have Hawaii Farmers Union United.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Member.

Thank you. And we had five in support. Zero opposition to this measure. Would anyone wish to testify on this measure? Okay.

Any questions from Committee Members on HB 47? Seeing None. We're going to close this measure and move on to the next one. HB781. HB781 is related to the Waiahole Water system. Appropriates funds for the Waiahole Water System for bond debt service and tunnel repair. First to testify on this measure is Agribusiness Development Corporation.

We would love for you to join us at the table.

I would have brought snacks. Wendy Gady with the Agribusiness Development Corporation. And let me cut to the chase. The farmers. The original bond was 8.5 million. The farmers have paid 9.6. We let this thing run all the way through. It's 14.4 million. We're asking for 4.4 million to offset 5.6 million. So it's an immediate return on investment.

In addition to that, we have about 40% of our revenues are offsetting debt. So as a result, we can't put money into cipher. So the CIP money that we're asking for is very specifically for the ADIT 8 tunnel.

And if you would like to see how in distress it is, I am more than happy to provide a field trip. I stand in support and I'm here for questions.

Thank you so much. Next to testify is Kunia Village Title Holding Corporation in on Zoom? No

Pull it closer next time.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Stephanie Whale and I'm the President of the Kunia Village Title Holding Company and the Kunia Village Development Corporation. I am testifying today on behalf of these entities and it consists of agricultural, housing and agriculture business community.

There are over 600 men, women and children residing there are working in the 10 agriculture businesses or nonprofit companies supporting agriculture. These are the people who help produce the fresh fruit and vegetables on your table. KBTHC and KBGC strongly supports House Bill 781 relating to the Waihole Water System. And I'll stand on the rest of my testimony.

And if you have questions, mahalo, Stephanie.

Thank you, Bear. Alan Takimoto. Thank you, Hawaii Agriculture Research Center. Thank you. Ulupono Initiative. No, Mariah. It's Mariah. Okay, we'll move on to the next Hawaii Farm Bureau. Brian Miyamoto.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau was down it's written testimony in support.

Thank you. We had 14 in support, one opposition. And that concludes our public testimony at this time. Anyone wish to testify in person, please come up to the mic. And please introduce yourself and your organization.

Hey, Chair. Vice Chair. Sorry, I'm going to spread my legs. Just because it's a little short. My name is Reginald Lazar, testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association. We stand on a written testimony in support. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Did you submit written testimony? Okay, we will check on that and make sure we incorporate it. And if we do not, we'll get in touch with you. Thank you so much. Any other Hawaii Farmers Union United?

We do have insupport. It was at the bottom of the list on the next page. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? Come on up, please.

My apologies, Chair, I'm late, but my name is Wayne Ogasawara. I'm a farmer at the Mililani Agricultural park where I've been farming for the last 25 years. I'm a product of the plantation. I grew up in a plantation camp just outside of Waihua and farming has been in my blood ever since. I've got.

I Farm about 160 acres in central part of Mililani. Land that I've purchased from Castle and Cook a number of years ago. On it, I've got about 30 tenant farmers and I myself farm probably about 60 acres. I've got well over 2,000 orchard plants, lychees, mangoes, avocados. These are permanent crops that I plan to keep.

Being that these lands are all considered important agricultural lands. The past year we've used $87,000 worth of water from the Waile Ditch. And obviously we'd like to see that reduced. So obviously I'm in favor of the bill. Thank you for your consideration and. And sorry I'm late.

Thank you very much. Would anyone else wish to testify on HB781 Members questions? Seeing none.

Seeing none, we're going to move on to the next measure on our agenda. That is HB499 relating to resiliency.

This measure establishes the food and beverage supply chain Resiliency Income Tax Credit to be administered by the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism in the Department of Taxation requires DBED to establish expedited permitting processes for food and beverage supply chain activities. And on that, the first to testify is the Department of Taxation.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. I would just note that we do have one recommended amendment to the bill which does, we believe, preserve the intent of the bill, but does reduce ambiguity and Administration. Other than that, I will stand on my testimony.

Thank you. Next to testify in support is Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau was down on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. Tax foundation of Hawaii on Zoom.

Yes. Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee, this is Jane McMillan. On behalf of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, we've submitted some comments on the measure, primarily as a technical matter. Our comments mention the definition.

Hold, Hold your comments real quickly. We're having a hard time hearing you. I don't. I don't know if we can fix the volume real quick so we can make sure your testimony is heard by everyone. Just one moment. Sorry to interrupt. Can you try to speak again and start. Start from the beginning. Our apologies.

Sure. My name is Jane Mcmillan. On behalf of the Tax foundation of Hawaii, we've submitted comments on the measure as a technical matter. In our comments, we've noted the definition of qualified taxpayer needs to be tightened.

Because it's unclear in the bill how a taxpayer can be engaged in activities that strengthen the state's food and beverage supply chain. We think it may make sense to require the qualified taxpayer to be part of the food and beverage supply chain. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Food Industry Association. Lauren.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair. Rep. Perruso. Lauren Zorbel, on behalf of Hawai'I Food Industry Association, We represent about 200 food and beverage supply chain Members, including retail groceries, suppliers, farmers and all sorts of distribution and auxiliary Members. We're in strong support of this measure.

As many of you know, one in three households are experiencing food insecurity in Hawaii right now. And on Hawaii island, it increases to 40%. Part of this issue is that according to the Department of Agricultural's Thrifty Food Plan, Hawaii food costs are approximately 57% higher than the mainland average.

There are several factors that contribute to this, of course, shipping. But also, you know, Hawaii, we experienced the highest electricity costs in the nation. We have labor cost issues and many other factors that drive up the price of food, including Permitting delays, sometimes very substantial permitting delays and high taxes.

So this bill would help to alleviate this crisis in two ways. Number one, it would provide an income tax credit to food producers including farmers, retailers and also food banks which actually do pay the get on food. I don't know if you're aware of that, but I found that kind of astounding.

And it also requires expedited permitting process. So it would put that under DEB to put a 120 day cap on food resiliency projects which I think would really go a long way. We have some Members that waited up to eight years for permitting approval on large scale manufacturing of food and beverage.

And, and that's just really doesn't help with the high cost. So we really appreciate you introducing this measure and for hearing it. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Lauren. Next we have the Hawaii Aquaculture and Aquaponics Association in support. I don't believe they're here in person. And we have Insupport Land Use Research foundation of Hawaii LURF in support. Hawaii Farmers Union United. Thank you. And then we have the Hawaii Food Bank. Amy Miller. Looks like she's not here in support.

That's all the testimony we've received so far. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? DBED, come on down.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair Members. Sorry we didn't catch this on our agenda here with comments. And currently DBED manages two tax credits with a staff of one. That's the film tax credit and the research and development tax credit. So if this were to pass we would ask for one FTE for capacity to administer this, this credit.

Mahalo. Thank you. Thank you.

Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? HB 499 questions Committee toe tax please. Just wanted to clarify. We did see your recommendation and amendment for just specifying what a qualified taxpayer would be and so we wish to include that. But one of the other things is the non refundable.

I think in the testimony you asked about making it non refundable, that is always. Can you, can you explain that? Just because that, because that would change the measure a little from refundable to non refundable.

It's always our department's position that we would prefer a Bill to be a non refundable credit. Especially if you're going to have a situation where you're going to have a lot of smaller individuals who can take advantage of it.

The main reason for it is it reduces the possibility of fraud and makes it easier to oversee if it is a refundable credit. We simply don't have the resources to audit every single person who puts it through. So it does create an opportunity for waste and spending because of potential for fraud.

Thank you very much. I have a question for the Hawaii Food Industry Association. Lauren. I know we kind of put the tax cap at the $2 million threshold. I guess what is the intention of one.

How many people we hope to be able to utilize that with that cap because it also might get to resource management if DBED can accommodate and the one FTE is really feasible. Are we looking at.

And then Dotak just said if it's small producers, do you have an idea in the intention of the measure what type of producers and what they're going to utilize more with? The 1 million isn't a high cap for multiple producers. So I just wanted you to talk through that a little bit.

Yeah, I mean, I agree. I think actually the cap could go higher. The measure was drafted to be extremely broad because the idea is to try to bring down the cost of food. And if you actually want to bring down the cost of food, you have to address large, medium and small.

Majority of food is obviously provided by large to medium sized businesses. So I wouldn't really feel comfortable with limiting it to small sized businesses because I don't think that would have an impact on food costs. I did read the DOE tax amendment. I'm fine with the way they defined that.

It's very similar to what's in the Bill already. So I don't have an issue with that particular amendment.

Okay. And then just a follow up question. So, you know, Hawaii Farmers Union United wanted to make sure that the Bill could be equitable and used across the board?

So do we, do we think at a $2 million cap, does anyone have an idea of how many producers might actually be able to use it before the cap hits? And again, if you can't estimate and someone else can, they can come up to speak. But are we looking at a dozen companies?

If it's medium and large, could it even be only one or two that could benefit at the cap or not?

Is it the $2 million cap on the amount of tax credit they can receive? So when like even large companies be able to apply for it, even though their expenses would be above 2 million, they would at least get 2 million off. That's how it would work, right?

Yeah, that's. I just wanted to clarify that to be sure because I don't think people under. It's cumulative.

Oh, like for all of the people that submit. Oh, okay. Yeah, I would prefer it not be that way then actually. Okay. Because I think that we would run out pretty immediately. I.

That's the intention of how I read the bill and we can check with do tax to confirm. Yeah. Thank you for answering. Answering that. DOE tax. Can you help us clarify and do we need to amend language?

I think it was. I can have one moment so I can address your question. I apologize. I got drafted in at the last minute to cover this. So. No problem. Double check.

Good cap.

While. While you were looking at that, I'm going to bring up Hawaii Farmers Union United. Thank you. Because I, I think it was your testimony, Hunter.

Because a number of these programs often when there are when there's a wide variety of sizes of entities participating.

For example, when we look at the compost reimbursement program, many entities are applying for the full reimbursement and that could use up the amount of funds before a variety of smaller entities may avail themselves of that opportunity.

That being said, as it's a tax credit some volume of smallholder producers and even as food hubs were listed and we definitely support that amendment and inclusion of the greater specificity of qualified taxpayer. Many of those are nonprofit organizations.

So unless they happen to be somehow incurring a tax bill, we think that trying to identify some provision and I believe and I can draw it up from previous years, there are some where essentially says that there's a holdout but if nobody uses there's a kind of a carve out for smaller users.

But if nobody uses that then it can go to any user. So if the applications haven't been received, the funds can still be distributed. It's not a hard carve out but we wanted to make sure that there'd be an equitable distribution based off of the variety of sizes that we have.

Thank you Hunter. DOE Tax.

Thank you.

Clinton Piper Department Taxation so to answer your question, there are currently essentially two different caps, both of which appear on page three of the current drafting of the Bill. The first cap has yet to be determined which is a individual cap on each individual taxpayer.

And then there's a second global cap which is 2 million, which is basically the total amount that the Legislature is currently proposing to set aside to pay this tax. Once that global cap is reached, there would be no more funds available. So it's a first come first serve until that cap is reached.

Once that cap is reached, no one else can take advantage of the credit for the remainder of the tax year.

Thank you, dotax. I think the intention of the bill was to do the opposite, blank the other and put the cap for individual on the other side. So thank you for that clarification and I'm glad we brought that up in discussion because I thought the 2 million would exhaust quickly.

So if the number were higher, that may cover some of the equity questions that came out in testimony. So thank you, folks. Any other Members with questions? You sure? Seeing none. We're going to move on to the next measure.

And that is HB 774 relating to value added products, establishes a food and product innovation network within the Agribusiness Development Corporation. First to testify on this measure is the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Governor of Agriculture will stand by his testimony.

Submitted. Thank you.

Thank you, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, dvet. Thank you, Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Wendy Gady with Agribusiness Development Corp. One of the five deadly sins of business is waste. One of the things people don't realize is about 45% of all product grown gets plowed back into the field because it's like the homecoming court. Only the beautiful people go to market.

So the F pin bill is actually for the balance of the graduating class to find a home and to create businesses. I'm here for questions.

Thank you very much. Next to testify on this measure is the University of Hawaii on zoom.

Sorry. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Carlos Penalosa. On behalf of the University of Hawaii. I'm here to stand on our written. Testimony in support of House Bill 774. Establishing the Food and Product Innovation Network. I'm here for questions.

Thank you, Chancellor. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Year was down on its written testimony in support.

Thank you, Hawaii Farmers Union United. Thank you, Hawaii Food Industry Association. Thank you very much. And so we had seven organizations in support. No individual testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Please come up and state your name. And if you're representing an organization.

My name is Renee Berthoum and I'm here to testify on behalf of Lanakila Pacific and in support of 774. I apologize for. We thought we sent in testimony, written testimony, but since you didn't have it, I guess you didn't have it.

So we will be sending that in and hopefully it'll be late, but you could still consider it. But I just want to take an opportunity to briefly say what Lanakila Pacific. We're in the process of opening up a agricultural training farm in Wahiawa.

It's on army land on corner of Leilehua Golf Course Road and Kamehameha highway, partially used by the National Guard to park vehicles there. The site. I had developed the site 40 something years ago for Ori Helemano Plantation. And it was a training farm then for developmentally disabled people. Grow produce and get them working.

So the objective of that farm will be two, twofold. One is we'll be concentrating on homeless people, homeless veterans, other homeless people, people with disabilities to be able to train them. And as well as that part is obvious, we want to move those people from public assistance onto employment.

And we'll be utilizing agricultural apprentice programs, which we've already had one approved for Lanakila, which gives us some support from the Department of Labor. The other part is we hopefully will be participating in the worthwhile effort the state has now to make us less dependent on imported foods.

So I'm from the area and I developed Telemanu Plantation something 40 something years ago. I've been involved out there for 50 years. And there's a lot of land, the old Galbraith land. We kind of know that there's.

My understanding now is that there is a shortage of workers, particularly trained workers that would help to alleviate, you know, we could produce more of our own food. So we hope this program would also address that issue as well. Am I able to ask a question as well?

We usually don't take questions for public testimony.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? We are on HB774 Members. Questions? ADC representative Peruso, ADC, please.

So I love this proposal and it feels visionary and you know, what we've been working for and waiting for. My question is really just about capacity because ADC now is doing so much additional work and I love the way that you're kind of ramping up the oversight and really the alignment and the actual functionality of the agency.

I guess, you know, you're doing the work on the water system, you're doing the work on the leases. And we still have concerns in my district about management of those leases. So I'm curious about how you see this unfolding over time. What is your timeline for kind of manifesting this vision?

Well, Wendy Gady, Agribusiness and Development Corp. And Rep. Peruso, if you're offering full time equivalents, I would certainly accept those. We've been working with the board to basically create a new organizational structure because to your point, there's a lot of good work happening.

There's a Lot more good work that needs to happen and building out that capacity is really key. One of the positions that we're advertising right now for is a climate resilient food and product innovation network manager. And that will start to leave that endeavor. Does that kind of answer your question?

It does. I'm just wondering if your board has like, in light of this Bill and these kinds of ideas, if they've started already thinking about what it might look like to plan for this or if those discussions haven't yet started happening.

They have been starting and it's part of our strategic planning process as well that it's been going on pretty regularly and it's wonderful. Thank you leg for having a full board and that's wonderful. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Members. Any further questions? See none. We're going to move on to the next measure. HB452 relating to meat processing requires the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism to develop and implement a grant program to expand the meat processing capacity in the state. First to testify on this measure is DBED.

Thank you, Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture.

In support Department of the Attorney General.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Elise Amemiya. Appearing on behalf of the Attorney General's Office, we offer these comments. This bill appears to not contain legally sufficient standards for grants of public money as required by Article 7, Section 4 of the Hawaii State Constitution.

So in our written testimony we have provided a suggestion for the these standards. We've given some samples and I thank you for this opportunity to testify and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Aloha. The Hawaii Farm Bureau is done on its written testimony and support.

Thank you, Hawaii Food Industry Association. Thank you. We have support from the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii. Is LURF here? No. And we have three. Two individual testimonies in support and one individual testimony in opposition. Would anyone else wish to testify? Hawaii Cattlemen's Council.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Member. My name is Nicole Galassi. I'm the managing Director of the Hawaii Cattleman's Council. I apologize we weren't able to get testimony in on time. I appreciate this opportunity to testify in person. Our position is that we support with comments.

We're of course not against funding for processing facilities, but the bottlenecks to the development of smaller meat processing plants actually have more to do with overregulation and the permitting issues rather than the lack of funding. So that's something that needs to be taken a look at first before providing funds for it.

And if the intent is to address the issue of invasive deer, our efforts might be better. Our funds might be better allocated towards things like controlling the deer movement. This is the first essential piece, according to the ranchers who have been working on this, to getting a handle on the populations, which is dire right now.

Getting a handle on the populations. Thank you so much for the opportunity to to testify.

Thank you. Sorry we missed that and it's wonderful to see you in person. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? Hawaii Farmers Union United.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Hunter Hen here on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union and speaking from my long experience as a hunter, we do support this measure and its intent to expand meat processing capacity and would like to kind of highlight that.

It seems like that there's an economic perspective that is required and would question the ability of that to be verified in some way should these grants be provided. That being said, expanding rural economic opportunities through variety of post harvest processing for hunters across the islands I think is a great measure and we support meat processing expansion. Period.

Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? Members questions? Can I ask a question of DBED?

Thank you deputy for being here. Question on your testimony about the priorities of DBED related to slaughterhouse and processing and the Food Product and innovation network. How is there another way to effectuate the intention of this measure to be productive with reaching our, you know, slaughterhouse or meat capacity goals?

I think is my first question because I saw your priorities and I'm trying to see where we can find alignment. Also understanding that the focus is on small animal processing, wild game and invasives which don't always necessarily fall under the DBED purview because of scale.

See if I can collectively gather our response here when we looked at this Bill. So in our framework we're focused a lot on the infrastructure and facilities to help scale up our small businesses, medium businesses and the cottage industries and speaking with them.

And case in point, you'll see in DBED's budget an appropriation request of 4 million for a small animal processing facility here on Oahu to begin with. That's to address the small animal farmers who no longer are able to process at the the state Kala Loa facility. They've reached capacity for the beef side. 500,000 in grants.

We would see a couple issues here. One is that enough for the applicants to expand their meat processing capability. If you don't have the infrastructure facilities, where would they process? Currently estimated for a mobile unit is 500,000 a piece and you might need several of those to put together the whole ecosystem of slaughter process package. Chill.

Secondly, if we're advocating for all of these possibly piece most short term impacts that could be set our administrative budget requests aside. So we don't want to compete or adversely impact our budget request. We would look at this as possibly a short term solution because there's also the challenge of the neighbor island.

Oahu doesn't have access to, neither does Kauai. We could look at partnering with the University of Maui. They received an appropriation probably I think two years ago, one or two years ago to expand their innovation center to Molokai where there is access to your problem, so that they could process as well as value add the entire animal.

So there's some appropriations out there that could address short term Molokai for Maui this could be an option short term, long term. They would need a, I think a brick and mortar processing facility. So that was our comments.

Thank you. One additional follow up question and this puts you on the spot a little bit. But if we were pivoting away from grants, I guess one of the questions are twofold.

Should we amend the Bill for a Small slaughterhouse facility on a rural island and put in that for one facility or should we if we did stay with the grants and stick to kind of the wording and intention of the Bill.

Do you think DBED is the best to facilitate this or because it includes invasive pests and wild game that if we kept it as more structured in the intention of Bill right now move it to the purview and oversight of the Department of Agriculture Long term if.

We'Re so to the latter part of your question. Long term if we are able to establish a food and product innovation network that would be part of their mission is to be solution based for these type of challenges. What could we do with a pest or biosecurity?

Can you value add it so that would fall under the purview later at fpen it could be transition short term you could house it under adc. We will look at the capacity there. But this is where always looking at solutions for our agriculture industry. Regarding grants.

The challenge with grants is that you're limited to who can get them and you might not reach the entire industry. And we see that with our manufacturing grants under Htdc. So it kind of picks and chooses which companies can now move forward and which either pause or risk closing because they weren't awarded the grant.

I really like that idea is if we're going to do the investment would you invest in either mobile or brick and mortar for the neighbor island which gives open access to all industry and we wouldn't be just limiting to what the budget would allow us to award.

Yeah, we would definitely support brick and mortar facilities across the state. That helps with resiliency and food security as well.

Thank you. Excellent answers to those questions.

We're deep in this food security and resiliency and infrastructure construction facilities.

So thank you. I think it's important that maybe we find a way to maybe align goals to your testimony. So I appreciate your testimony and answers.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions Members see none. We are going to move on to the next measure.

HB496 relating to Mamaki tea imposes labeling requirements for mamaki tea grown in the state. First to testify is Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

The Department of Agriculture stands on its written testimony.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau.

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

Thank you. We have two organizations in support and no other testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? Hawaii Farmers Union United. Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify on this Measure seen none. Members, any questions? We're going to move on to the next measure. HB643 relating to the coconut rhinoceros beetle program.

Establishes short term management initiatives for the coconut rhinoceros beetle Response program. Appropriates funds for activities and positions related to coconut rhinoceros beetle infestation control. We have 65 people in support and two in opposition. First to testify on this measure is DLNR maybe. Thank you so much. We have Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Aloha Chair. The Department of Agriculture stands in strong. Support of this measure.

Thank you, University of Hawaii System Dean. Thank you, Hawaii Invasive Species Council. Chelsea Arnott.

Aloha Chair. Vice Chair. Representative Puruso. Thank you for having me. Chelsea Arnott, on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council. So yes, this session I'll be specifically representing Hawaii Invasive Species Council and just standing in support of this bill and really appreciate its introduction. I'm around for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next we have CGAPS Coordinating Group on alien pests species. Thank you very much, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. Also thank you for having us too. Hawaii Farm Bureau is down on its testimony and support.

We always love seeing you in person as well.

Next, we have Malama AA Landscape and Masonry Design LLC in opposition, testifying in person. No one on Zoom. Okay, I'm here. Oh, oh. Clayton, hold on one moment. Go ahead, Clayton. On Zoom.

Klayton Kubo, Waimea, Kauai. I would say, what would Hawaii be without a coconut tree? So departments, divisions. From what I've seen, from what I've heard, majority is failing on this issue. So in a way hopeful that maybe this can be one long term, not just a short term situation.

Because then again, reiterating, what would Hawaii be without a coconut tree?

Mahalo, Clayton. There are many other testifiers submitting supportive testimony on this measure would. But I see none to testify in person. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? Again, we had 65 in support and two in opposition. Many, many testimony on this important measure.

See none. Members questions. Representative Peruso.

For CTAR, please.

CTAR Dean, please come forward.

Thank you. So I'm curious about the funding question, not just with respect to CRB suppression and eradication, but also more broadly around your research into invasive species and the work that you're doing actually writ large. So I have two questions.

The first question is we saw a percentage of how much money you're reliant on for your funding, your current funding for UHCRB response team. That's about 80% from the USDA, is that correct? So how much money is that though? Do you know off the top of your head? And if you don't, that's fine. It's not a test.

I don't know. But I do have the answer.

Dr. Mike Melzer might know. Yep, 1.8 million per year.

Okay. And then I guess my follow up question is, are you also. Because my understanding of the response team is that it's about action and it's not so much focused on research. Do you also have work within CTAHR that is focused on research around suppression and eradication?

And then what would the monies, the federal funds that we are currently dependent on for that work be?

So yes, there is research effort within CTAHR for the control, for long term control of the beetle. But that said, this particular effort, the dollars that we get from usda, I think more on action oriented work. Is that correct?

Right. But I guess my question is, are you also doing research around additional possible research findings? So are you doing academic work related to crb?

Yes, the answer would be yes.

Okay, so then my follow up would be how reliant are we on federal funding for that research work?

Currently we don't have any other avenue. We have very small grants from the Department of Agriculture or from Invasive Species Council for small projects. But we would like a more concerted larger effort to put into this because the pests that are here already, we need strong, effective, sustainable management approach to them.

And the piecemeal approach is not going to help us with that. Small projects, you know, evaluation of this product or that we can continue to do with small grants. But a larger effort definitely is needed.

Okay, I'm not sure that fully answers my question. Did you want to come in?

Please come up. Can you just introduce yourself?

My name is Michael Melzer at the College of Tropical Agricultural and Human Resilience at the University of Hawaii. I'm not paid through those grants, so my funding is state, I'm paid through the University, so I'm allowed, I do research on CRB. We also have federal, it's more of an educational grant in biosecurity.

And so I've directed some of our students to work on that as part of that grant. It's not specifically for crb, it's more for biosecurity. But we have a couple of students working on CRB research and then our final source of funds for supporting our nascent research program is through our federal funds.

The some of the indirect costs trickle down to our lab. And so we have a little bit of money from the income we get from the indirect costs that are recovered from the University. Some of that trickles down to our lab.

And so we can use those funds to support, you know, our research efforts, as small as they are.

Okay. And those research monies are funded through NIH or?

The educational funding is through USDA, NIFA, National Institute of Future and Agriculture.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Members? Seeing none. We're going to move on to the next measure, HB427, relating to biosecurity. Just bear with me while I go over all the different parts of the bill. Part one renames the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. Renames the Board of Agriculture to the Board of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Part two, establishes and appropriates funds to secure a Deputy Director for Biosecurity. Part three, changes the reference to the Plant and Animal Declaration Form, that is the form you fill out on the airplane arriving into Hawaii, and changes the name to the Biosecurity Form.

Part four authorizes specific conditions under which the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity may declare a biosecurity emergency, during which the Department of- the Department and the Governor may take certain actions to prevent the establishment or spread of pests and prohibited or restricted organisms. Broadens the objectives and general actions of the biosecurity program.

Part five, appropriates funds for positions for the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. Just a few disclaimers, there are other biosecurity bills. Some of the testimony indicated within this measure, HB427, that there is opposition testimony to the movement of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council to this new entity in the Department of Agriculture.

I just would like to clarify on the record that is not in this bill. I know it was long, so people did not read it, but if you review public testimony, all of the opposition is related to the movement of that position primarily.

So I wanted to clarify if you do not need to bring that up in testimony because it is not a part of this measure, we'd like you to stick to this measure relating to biosecurity with your intentions and comments. With that said, we're going to start with testimony from the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Jonathan. Thank you, Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Representative Perruso. Thank you so much for having me. It's wonderful to be here. Chelsea Arnott, on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council, we're in support of this bill. I just flagged some language in there about the Hawaiian- the chairperson.

I have to get back to this language here real quick for the Hawaii Invasive Species Council shall report directly to the chairperson with the biosecurity emergency.

And just flagging that the council is co chaired by the directors of the Department of Agriculture and Land and Natural Resources and has leadership from the other four state departments with some jurisdiction and prevention and management.

So the forum already exists and just suggesting to change language that the chairperson works within that forum of the Hawaiian Basis Species Council when there is a biosecurity emergency. Mahalo.

Thank you. We have supportive testimony from the- from Council Member Fern Holland in support. Next we have CGAPS, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. Thank you for having me today. Listening to our testimony of this bill. We really appreciate the focus on biosecurity in this bill.

Even renaming Department of Ag, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity providing express quarantine authority, the ag declaration form. There's a lot of great stuff. We do have some concerns with this bill.

The first is legislative oversight related to the new Deputy Director of Biosecurity since that person will be outside the civil service system and have a lot of critical responsibilities. We hope this committee would consider having advice and consent of the senate for the person appointed to that position. Our second in our testimony-

the second area we flag is the emergency biosecurity emergencies. We believe that Chapter 127a puts the authority to declare an emergency with the chief executive, the governor for the state, the mayors for the counties and that's appropriate place for that authority as has been done for the access year.

So they can look at all of the resources available and the chief executive can decide. And then just following up that during a declared biosecurity emergency on page 30, I believe it's lines three through five would have the HISC reporting to the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

That is an independent council co chaired by the Department of Agriculture. And we think that it's- and it's not- the reporting isn't tied in any way to the biosecurity emergency. It's just during a biosecurity emergency which could last for years that they would have to completely report. It's-

It's unclear to us how that would be helpful and we hope this committee might consider removing that provision. Thank you. For the opportunity and for listening to my testimony.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Cattleman's Council. 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. Oahu Invasive Species Committee, OIS. Not here. Matson Navigation Company with comments. Hawaii Farmers Union United. Sorry, I added the old U.

Sorry.

Sierra Club of Hawaii on zoom.

Hi. Good morning, Chair Kahaloa, Vice Chair Kusch, Members of the Committee. Wayne Tanaka with the Sierra Club of Hawaii. We, you know, we really appreciate and you know, support much of what's in this measure. We do have a couple concerns.

I think I were spoken to earlier about having HISC report to or answer to the Department of Ag Chair. You know, DOA has unique authorities, but also a narrow focus and less expertise and you know, the very broad HISC and it's HISCs, so it might make more-

it doesn't really make sense to have the HISCs answer to the HDOA. Maybe it should be the other way around.

And then the- the other amendment we would ask that you consider is similar to CGAP's testimony, but having a mechanism to kind of review the work of the Deputy of Biosecurity just to make sure that the vision and intent of this measure is being advanced as we go forward. Happy to answer any questions.

Otherwise, thank you again for all of your focus on biosecurity this session. Mahalo.

Mahalo for your testimony. Did we forget any other testimony? Would anyone wish to testify on this measure? Again, we had se- over 74 pieces of testimony, 47 in support, 19 in opposition and eight with comments. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Okay, Members, questions. Wow, how exciting. We're going to-

We are now going to move on to the next measure. Shifting away from biosecurity to agricultural crimes. So next measure is HB 501 relating to the Department of Law Enforcement. Establishes the Agricultural Enforcement Program within the Department of Law Enforcement. Establishes the Agricultural Enforcement Special Fund, establishes positions and appropriates funds.

First to testify is Hawaii Department of Agriculture Chair.

The Department of Agriculture stands on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. Department of Budget and Finance. Have anyone? With comments? We had support from the County of Hawaii Research and Development, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Nicole Galassi, on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. We stand on our written testimony and support. And I just want to point out that the Department of Law Enforcement has already been engaging with agriculturalists, ranchers and farmers.

And we believe that they do have the capability of addressing ag crimes and helping them will help us. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next on the agenda, Hawaii Farm Bureau in alphabetical order after C.

Like the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association. I'm going to have to bend down. A little bit here because you're also so tall.

Yes.

Morning, chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. I didn't think I could go all herein without at least coming to the podium once you have a written testimony in support. And as you heard, the Hawaii Cattleman's Council. And this is a very serious problem.

Farmers been dealing with issues such as land. You hear us come all the time. Water, labor, transportation, energy, and most recently invasive species and the cost that it has to the state and to our farmers and ranchers. Agricultural crimes are no different. You saw the most recent survey. I think it's $14.4 million underreported.

The impact to our farmers and ranchers are much greater. So as, as the Cattleman says, we're thrilled that Department of Law Enforcement is taking on agricultural crimes as one of their priorities. We just need to make sure that they are properly funded and staffed and have the resources.

And we like to see the tip line that they have be similar to crime stoppers where there is some monetary give to those that report the crimes. We need to encourage more reporting of crimes. We need more data on those crimes to show how big of an issue this is.

It shouldn't need to take a death to one of our ag producers in order for us to take agriculture crimes seriously. And just to note, if Department of Law Enforcement is watching, I do believe that the Bill does allow for voluntary law enforcement officers. And if I pass a background check, I would like to volunteer for that.

We need more agriculturalists involved in law enforcement for agriculture that understand the industry, understand the players, and I think we can make a dent in reducing ag crimes so not just theft, vandalism, trespassing, all of the above. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next we have Hawaii Farmers Union. Thank you. We have support from Hawaiian host group, support from Puu Lani Ranch Company and many others with individual testimonies in support. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? We are on HB501. Anyone on Zoom? Seeing none, Members questions? We will move on to our final agenda.

Item HB498, also relating to agricultural crimes, establishes the Hawaii Agricultural Crimes Council expands the duties of the Department of Agriculture to collaborate with and Support the council Authorizes the council to withdraw and deposit monies, revenues and fines into and out of the Animal Industry Special Fund. Appropriates funds first to testify as Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Hello, Chair. The Department of Agriculture stands on its written testimony and strong support of this.

Thank you, Department of Attorney General.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Kelsey Nagasa, Deputy Attorney General, providing comments on HB498. The bill wording has certain sections that. May cause confusion for the potential Members of this newly established council. We have provided suggested revisions in our written testimony that may clarify this issue. Secondly, section blank dash 4 of the.

Bill lacks wording on how the council appointed investigators would enforce agricultural crimes and. What those agricultural crimes could be. If the intent of the Legislature is. To create an attached agency similar to the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement or DOE Care, then it may be effective.

To conform the bill wording similar to Chapter 199 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Thank you. And I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. We had support from the County of Hawaii Research and Development Division, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. Thank you, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hoy Farm Bureau was down on its written testimony in support.

Thank you, Hawaii Farmers Union. Thank you. We had support from the Northshore Livestock Hawaiian host group K Ranch and other individual testimonies in support. So we had 22 testimonies in support, one with comments. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? On Zoom? We have someone joining us. You may begin. And please introduce yourself.

Yes. My name is Brittany. And me. My name is Brittany Anderson. I'm a farmer and rancher on the Big island, and I'm here today in strong support of House Bill 498.

As someone who has personally experienced agriculture theft and worked through the legal process to seek justice, I know firsthand the frustration and financial strain these crimes place on our farmers and ranchers. When my property was targeted, I quickly realized the challenges of reporting, investigating and prosecuting these crimes.

The lack of dedicated enforcement, limited resources in rural areas, and gaps in our current laws make it incredibly difficult for farmers to protect their livelihoods. And unfortunately, I'm not alone. Agriculture theft, vandalism and trespassing have become far too common, threatening not just individual operations, but Hawaii's entire food system.

Through my work in agriculture community, whether speaking at community meetings, receiving calls from neighbors, or serving as a panelist at the State Agriculture Conference, I've heard the same concerns repeated over and over. Farmers need stronger protections better coordination with law enforcement and real solutions to deter these crimes.

That's exactly why the creation of the Hawaii Agricultural Crimes Council is so important. It will ensure that farmers and ranchers finally have a voice in the conversation about how to protect their land and livelihoods. House Bill 498 is a necessary step towards addressing agriculture theft.

Mahalo for your time and for your commitment to protecting Hawaii's agricultural community.

Thank you, Brittany, for your testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? Members, questions? Representative Peruso, Department of Ag, please.

Department of AG. Sorry. So I noticed. I noticed in the AG's testimony that there were some questions about the configuration of this council. And then also, I mean, more importantly for me, they raised a question at the end of their testimony which has to do with kind of the vision.

And I wanted to ask you about your understanding of the vision. So they're asking if the intent is to create an attached agency similar to that of DOE care. And is that your understanding of what we're kind of creating here?

I know that chair is very passionate. About addressing ag crimes. And obviously collaboration with DLE is what. It will take for us to get the support we think we need for. The farmers, ranchers, and AG in General. But in particular to the vision.

I would have to get back to you because that would be for the Director and possibly Deputy to discuss.

Okay. If you could do that, I'd appreciate it.

Okay, thanks. Thank you.

Members, questions?

Sorry, Cedric, can we ask you one more question, please? Department of Agriculture.

Go back up.

My apologies.

Go ahead. Go ahead. Chair.

Thank you. I think it was in your department's testimony to utilize the special fund, not take funds from the special fund, from the animal industry special fund, and rather establish a new special fund via the last bill that was on our agenda, which was the creation of a brand new special fund.

So I just wanted to clarify if there was any other reasons behind the switch to that spec- not utilizing the other special fund versus creating a new one such sometimes departments don't want to create any new special fund from scratch.

So just wanted clarification because I think your testimony said please use the new special fund that's created if the passage of HB501. So I'm just asking if we should support moving- moving that language from one bill into this one.

I think with your guidance and- and your advice, we would definitely heed what you're saying in terms of the special funding aspect, of course, the department wants to try to keep as much funding within the department to continue to do all the other work that we are tasked with.

So having that additional special fund will allow us to have more of a consistent baseline for us to go and address that specific issue. So I think that where the department stands.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Mahalo. Thank you. Chair.

That's my only question. Farm Bureau, do you have anything to add? No, just checking. Any other questions Members? Well, it looks like we are going to move to vote and get into decision making. We have our Members here. We will just take a second to reorganize as we go back to the top of the agenda.

I'd like to welcome Representative Quinlan and Representative Lowen. Thank you guys for being here. We're going to start with decision making. So we're going back to the top. HB 47 relating to aquaculture. We are going to move a House draft one and move this bill with amendments.

We want to put technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style in the bill just to make sure if there's any clerical errors or things that have inconsistencies. It's just kind of a cleanup measure. We want to defect the date to July 1st 3,000 and blank the Appropriations Members. Questions or comments? See? None.

Vice Chair, move to vote.

Okay, here's my roll. Members noting Representative Ward is excused from today's hearing. We are voting on HB47 and the chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Okay, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to House Bill 781 relating to the wahole water system. I recommend that we pass this with amendments and create a House draft one again. Adjust technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style.

We will also be defecting the date to July 1st, 3000, blank all appropriations and notate the appropriations amount amounts in this bill in the standing Committee reports. Members questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB 781. The chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments and noting the excused absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no's? Seeing none. Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. We're now moving on to the next measure, House Bill 499 relating to resiliency. We would like to move this measure and pass with amendments. Bear with me. There's a couple of changes. So with this House draft one, we want to blank the appropriation. We want to make sure that the bill is consistent.

So we will make tech amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. We want to defect the date to July 1,3000. We did want to strengthen language in the bill to confirm that DBED is confirming the rules and processes and management of this fund. Not do tax. DOE tax has oversight, but the management is with DBED.

So we wanted to make that clarification. We also will take do tax recommended amendments. And this is related to the qualified taxpayer. There wasn't. There was a definition earlier in the bill, but not in the tax portion.

And so we want to say that the qualified taxpayer means a taxpayer subject to tax under this chapter involved in production, processing, distribution, storage, revenue, retailing and donation of food and beverage products in the state, including hyphen 1. Farmers and ranchers, 2. food and beverage hubs and Cooperatives, 3. Food and beverage processors and manufacturers, 4.

Distributors and logistic companies. 5. Grocery stores, markets and other food and beverage retailers, and 6. food banks and organizations that provide food assistance. We're just strengthening that language of that qualifier. We, I. We do want to say that, yes, we've blanked the appropriations, but we would not like to see the cap at $2 million.

We would like that to be significantly higher. And we'd like to address that in the standing Committee report just to correct that each applicant could utilize the $2 million in the individual tax taxors or tax credit applicants cap, not the total cap of this tax credit. So we want to clarify that.

We think that will address some of the equity concerns but to make sure we have the equitable distribution of credits we'd like to use some of the language from what Farmers unions amendments so we want to amend section 2c to include the total amount of tax credits available zero to include this at least 25 at least 25% of the cap shall be reserved for small scale producers and community based organizations so that no matter what that cap is we Reserve a certain portion for small producers only.

The other portion is moot because we clarified the other piece and we do want to establish reporting metrics so we want to amend Section 2 subsection E4 to add subsection 7 establish annual performance metrics including but not limited to the number of new businesses supported, the percentage of increase in local food production and the volume of food donations facilities facilitated to evaluate the impact of the tax credit on the food system's resilience.

So also from farmers union recommendations on that note I think I have gone over I would also like to note sorry one more in the Standing Committee report that DBED may need one FTE to facilitate the application of this tax credit if this bill were to continue to move forward and I will pause there Members lot to digest but comments or questions?

How much time do you have? Thank you Members. See no further questions. Call for the vote thank you Vice Chair.

Okay, thank you. Voting on HB499 the share's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting in the excused absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no's? Noting None Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Vice Chair Next measure on Decision making is HB774 related to value added products. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments we'd like to just put technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style and defect the date to July 1, 3000 and that will be all Members Questions Concerns? Seeing none Call for the vote Vice Chair.

I have concerns.

Sorry about that. That's okay Representative Perruso so while I.

So while I support the energy of the new leadership of ADC, I do have concerns about capacity so I'll be voting WR thank.

You and sorry for not pausing long enough for you to chime in. Thank you Members. Any other comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote okay.

Voting on HB 774. The Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Ward and Representative Peruso. WR is there any no's or other reservations? Seeing None. Chair, your recommendation passes. Is adopted. Sorry.

Thank you Vice Chair Moving on to the next measure HB452 relating to meat processing. I would like to continue the conversation on this bill and pass with amendments. We want to again include technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style and defect the date for July 1, 3000.

Right now I would like to make an amendment in the bill related to the Attorney General's recommendations on constitutionality. And and that was because she wanted it was in testimony to describe how the grants are facilitated and be very clear versus create a grants program.

So to make sure that we abide by Article 7, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, we're going to adopt the AG's testimony on page 3, lines 5 and add a new subsection D with one full page of grant applications.

I'm not going to read all of them, but those are standardized and in the public Testimony There are 10 points and the summation is Applications for grant shall be made to the Department of DBED Contains information by the rules they're under.

At a minimum, the applicant should be licensed, have a plan, a scope of work, use state funds only for that purpose, and so on and so forth. So legal jargon to maintain our constitutionality.

That being said, I would also like to put in the notes that we should consider moving from grants and the Next Committee should consider putting in funding for a meat processing, mobile or brick and mortar facility on a rural island, on Hawaii island or on Maui.

The intentions are there, but it is going to the Economic Development Committee and I will allow them to make that decision. So I want that in the Standard Dean Committee report. That being said, Members, any questions or comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB452, the Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. And noting the absence again of Representative Ward, are there any reservations or nos? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB496 relating to māmaki Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments House draft one. Of course we want to do tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style and defect the date to July 1, 3000.

We also need to strengthen the language at focused on the terms Hawaii, Hawaiian grown and māmaki are the labeling protections. There was some inconsistencies about can the plant be grown in Hawaii or can it be grown out of state.

We want to make sure that we protect farmers and producers and that the protections of the māmaki labeling bill are around growing the product in Hawaii to use the labeling language of Hawaii, Hawaii grown or māmaki.

So our writing agency wanted to just clarify some light terms around that confusion so that we are not banning any plant with the same genus and species being grown out of state. They can grow it anywhere else in the world. It cannot use the name of the plant. It could say any kind of name.

They could make up any name, but they cannot use Hawaiian, Hawaii or the word mamaki. So that is what we are trying to protect. And, and so there's just some strengthening language, very light touch to clarifying that. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture has requested to include a staff position.

They do not have anyone to do enforcement for any labeling regulations that has been stripped from them over time. So we are going to put an amendment and make this bill an appropriation to include A Measurement Standards Inspector 5 SR-19, 1 FTE for $65,000.

All of the appropriations and FTE will be blanked, but we'll notate the specificities of that position, how much FTE and the price in the Committee report. Comments or questions from Committee? If not, Vice Chair, move for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB496 the Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or nos seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to the next measure, HB643 relating to the coconut rhinoceros beetle program. This is an important program that we want to retain. And so we want to move this bill with amendments in the House draft one. There will be just light touches to technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, cincin style.

We do want to defect the date to July 1, 3000. We want to blank all additional appropriations that aren't already blanked in the bill. We do want to put the appropriation amounts in the standing Committee report. We have testimony from Members on the Kauai Council.

So Council Member Holland and Cowen really requested that we include Kauai in this funding measure. So we would like to do that. It was just Hawaii island and Maui County that were included. So we want to make a carve out to make sure Kauai is included.

So on page 5, subsection 3, lines 3, insert we do want to have 25,000 for the extending deployment of the CRB response team teams, but we want to include Kauai in that language. And then we also want on page 5, subsection 6, line 12 to blank the FTE.

But describe the $200,000 request is actually for one full time technician and two graduate students permanent for biocontrol research. So we just want to make sure that appropriations and descriptions are blank. But everyone understands that it Is for more than one position. On page 4, Section 2, delete subsection 5, which are lines 10 and 11.

Per the testimony of the University of Hawaii. They basically said subsidizing fumigation is not something they can do at this time. So within that line of deletion, we have to delete the appropriation amount. On page 5, subsection, Section 3, subsection 5, lines 10 and 11.

To be consistent with the bill, there's a description line that we're removing and then we're removing the funding for the fumigation because UH said they cannot do that at this time. And then we do want to add, in replacement of subsection five, add an additional appropriation for three drones on Hawaii Island, Maui and Kauai for $60,000.

The appropriation will be blank but notated in the standing Committee report. And we want to do this because we did understand from the CRB response team that they are putting the only drone that we have for CRB response that includes spraying equipment and treatment. They only have one, and that goes on a boat that doesn't.

That can't fly commercial. So they have to ship it to another island to apply treatment and then ship it back. So we would like to see more equity.

We would also like to see that UH will share this among others who are trained for drone pesticide treatment so that we can really address county by county emergency CRB response. We also want to take the Department of AG's Recommendation on page 4, Section 2, subsection 4, line 7, cooperation to the word coordination.

That's between the CRB response team and the Department of Agriculture. And also for clarity, consistency and style. On page five, subsection four, line seven, change the $250,000 appropriation to perform K9 inspections. We wanted to say in coordination with the Department of Ag. It is listed in the description that they're going to coordinate with the Department.

We want to just say in coordination in the language on the appropriation side and lastly in the Committee report that this program has been primarily funded by the Federal Government as stated in many, many testimonies, and they may or may not receive continued funding later this year if continued funding is not reapproved or the position of the Federal Government on CRB response does not change.

So we want to notate that in the standing Committee report. And that will be all. We can all breathe and Committee comments, concerns, questions. Vice Chair move for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB643. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting Mr. Ward's absence is there any reservations or nos? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Vice Chair. Moving on to HB427 Members, thank you for bearing with us. We are almost over relating to biosecurity. We want to pass this with amendments. It is a majority caucus package. So there's a strong position in the House to move this conversation forward to strengthen our state's biosecurity efforts.

And again I want to be clear that in this measure House Bill 427 we are not moving the Hawaii Invasive Species Council to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. That is not in this bill. In this House draft one we are going to do tech amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style.

We want to defect the date to July 1, 3000 blank all appropriations and FTEs and notate them in the Standing Committee reports. We would also like to acknowledge that there was request for more legislative oversight in the selection process of the Deputy Director. We acknowledge this.

Therefore we did notice in the Senate version of a similar bill but not the same SB 1100. They created their Deputy Director position in Chapter 141 while we created ours in 150A.

To be consistent, we want to move it to Chapter 141 and with that change the deputy position will also be changed to be an appointment by the Governor. But I am not including advice and consent in that in at this time. It will go on to the Judiciary Committee or others to decide that.

So the amendment will replace the language on page 15 of our bill. Line 7 to 11. HDOA did ask for an amendment that the new Deputy Director be appointed from an existing employee of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. I'm not recommending this amendment at this time.

I think we need to not limit the hiring of a new Deputy Director and make sure we're really clear to hire the best position for the job. That shrinks our ability to hire the best person.

If this Bill were to move forward and we're also not taking the recommendation of making sure that the position has a 10 year contract upon hiring.

I will take the Hawaii Invasive Species Council recommendation on page 30, section 152 A2 basically saying the Hawaii Invasive Species Council shall instead of report directly to work with the Chairperson of the Department of Agriculture.

We want to amend page 35 to clean up the language for consistency in the statute in HRS 150-A523 the language of wording of invasive species. The Department prefers to use the word pest. It is defined in their statute and includes all invasive species including those in our natural environment, not just in Agriculture.

So we're going to take that amendment from the Department. Another amendment, page 37, section A7B and under subsection B, reporting pests, prohibited or restricted organisms and add the words without a permit that are change known to, discovered or suspected to be present in imported products. And that is a recommendation of the Department of Agriculture.

One other cleanup is on page 37, section B1. Subpoena any necessary documentation from remove agricultural commodity importers relating to a remove known and add the word discovered or suspected investigation of a pest or prohibited or restricted organism, real light touches recommended by the Department.

We also want to delete the section on page 38, section B2, lines 326. Delete those lines completely. The Department of Agriculture says they already have the authority in this emergency power. So it's a redundancy. And I believe that is all we have for that measure. Members, questions, Comments, Concerns?

I have a question. So it has to do with your very last comment. Yes. So about the emergency powers provision. So I noticed in Sierra Club's testimony that they objected to on page 30, lines three through seven. I think that particular approach to emergency powers. And can you kind of talk about your thinking on that?

Yes. So in that testimony and they were not the only testifier, but yes, that testimony indicated that there are already emergency powers with the Governor. And I think CGAPS used the example, the Access Deer Emergency Proclamation. That is a process that can be used and mobilized.

I think with a biosecurity emergency, there's a feeling this is similar to SB572 that the Legislature moved, creating a little more opportunity for the Department to say if there is a green waste or potential knowledge of something at the port of entry at the docks in any pathway that we strengthen the language to allow them to go.

And the Governor can also call for either the Chair or the Governor to move forward with an inspection. So we did pass that in the Legislature before. And so we are keeping that language. We're just strengthening it. But we feel that they can respond quicker. I do agree that we have powers that we haven't utilized for biosecurity.

And I have called for the Department to create like the Access Deer EP call for a biosecurity emergency. And so I think there's intention to do that. But this will help give an additional tool in their toolbox versus one or the other.

And because it was signed by every Member of the majority, I am not inclined to make an adjustment on that particular measure, even though there was some testimony at this time.

Thank you.

Thank You. Any other comments, concerns, Members? If not Vice Chair, call for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB 427. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting Representative Ward's absence. Are there any reservations or no's? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, HB501 relating to the Department of Law Enforcement. We are moving this measure with amendments. House Draft 1. We want to defect the date to July 1, 3000. We want to include tech amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. Blank all FTEs that are in the bill now and notate them in the Committee report.

We also want to say and be very clear there were questions whether it was the Department of Law Enforcement Director or the Assistant Chief that's in administering the AG Enforcement Program, who is responsible?

We want to make sure we strengthen the language that the Assistant Chief Administrator of the AG Enforcement Program is responsible for all of the duties and responsibilities of the program. And that is all we have on that measure. Members, any questions? Concerns, Vice Chair, Call for the vote.

Voting on HP501. The Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments noting Mr. Ward's absence. Are there any reservations or nos? Seeing none. Chair, recommendation is adopted.

Members, thank you for their patience. Last measure, HB498 relating to agricultural crimes. A couple of changes here. We do want to pass with amendments. And in this House draft one, we will have tech amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. There it looks like all appropriations are blanked.

We do want to take the language on the creation of the Special Fund per the department's testimony from HB501, and insert that into this bill instead of taking appropriating revenues and fines through the Animal Industry Special Fund.

So we want to take that language and we also want to adopt the Attorney General's testimony and defect the date to July 1, 3000. Members, questions, concerns or comments? If not Vice Chair, call for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB 498. The Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting Representative Ward's absence. Any reservations or nos Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Members of the Committee. We are adjourned.