Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Okay. Aloha mai kakou and good afternoon. Mahalo for joining us today for today's AEM, TCA and EIG Joint Hearing. It's February 5, 2025 and we are convened in room 224 and video conferencing which includes the audio and video of remote participants that's being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that something happens, we had to cut this hearing short. We will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Friday, February 7th at 1:02pm during AAN's time slot.

Any public notice will be posted and because of our 90 minute time limit for the hearings, there'll be a two minute time limit for all testifiers and we'll have a virtual countdown timer on the zoom screen. So we have one Bill on this agenda and it's SB 1023 relating to the spaying and neutering of animals.

Establishes the Spay Neuter Special Fund to reduce pet overpopulation and reproduction of free roaming cats and various revenue and fundraising sources for the special fund. First up is Department of Taxation.

Good afternoon, Chairs, vice chairs and Members of the Committee. Garrison Kurth, Department of Taxation. The department's written testimony will stand on it. I'm available for questions. Thank you very much.

DLNR Anyone from DLNR submits comments. Chelsea Arnott from the Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee. Chelsea Arnott, on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council, we're here to support this, this measure. It's very challenging to find a place where we can meet in the middle with pet advocates and conservationists when it comes to managing cat populations, especially on the landscape.

I don't foresee this Bill doing a reduction in cats on the landscape, but I think it's a helpful measure and just want to highlight, you know, no re release. Trap, neuter release, we're against, but definitely spay and neutering animals is really important to managing cat and other pet populations. Mahalo.

Thank you. Louis Oliveira from Budget and Finance. His comments. Tom Yamachika on zoom from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii.

Good afternoon, Chairs, vice chairs, Committee Members, Tom Yamachika from Tax foundation of Hawaii. We have concerns about the new special fund and the income tax checkoff. The income tax check off. We've already got four of them and this would be the fifth. So that I think would create an administrative problem.

And the special fund, as we wanted to point out, does not seem to meet the criteria in 37-52.3 for a special fund.

I'm sorry. Okay. All right, Next is Stephanie Kendrick from the Hawaiian Humane Society.

Aloha Chairs, vice chairs, Members of the Committee. So many committees. Steph Kendrick from the Hawaiian Humane Society, I'm deeply grateful to you for hearing this Bill today. You have our testimony in strong support.

Spayneuter is one of the areas where conservation and animal welfare can meet in the middle and try and create the best outcomes for all of the animals in our community. And we're grateful for the support of this measure. On the conservation side. This is a desperate problem in our state.

And right now, outside of the GIA process, the. The state doesn't invest any funding in helping to control either pet animal overpopulation or the free roaming cat population. We did a survey this past year of the Oahu community and asked people about their attitudes towards free roaming cats and possible management strategies.

And while there was concern about free roaming cats among our residents, the support was for trap neuter, return for spay, Neuter of pets as the appropriate response to that, that issue. There was very little support for lethal control.

So we really urge the committees to pass this measure and help the nonprofits who are doing this great work across our state have the funding that they need to do so. Mahalo.

Thank you. Ali Halawaj from Popoki Flay Swahu Cat Sanctuary in support. Kathy Gogel from the Amor Rights Hawaii on zoom.

Zernono present on Zoom chair.

In support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, please come forward.

Aloha, Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of ROAR Cares in strong support of the TRAP and Neuter Special Fund. So cats, my favorite topic. Although if they were to do something with the legislation for ducks or chickens, I probably say those are my favorite too because my mom has a chicken sanctuary. She rescues little chicks. Yeah.

So I love animals. So I'm going to provide a basic overview of the larger picture of the cat community initiatives and why a state funding mechanism is necessary for TRAP and Neuter Special Fund.

So I went to the Waianae Boat harbor where they had the cutest cats and puppies, a large group of kitties and puppies that were getting pregnant at the boat harbor because of a lack of management strategies.

And the primary organizer as well as a few other clinics coordinated the pop up resource tent to provide resources to the low income households. And so the feral cat population is overwhelming to the General public and it costs community Members valuable resources to manage it.

And this from our perspective should be a shared responsibility of the city, city and state. And right now the county's office Provides and the state does not provide a funding mechanism. So male cats are aggressive when they're in heat. Male cats will attempt to mate with female cats in heat from as much as 2 miles distance.

And a female cat can get pregnant with 12 to 18 kittens in a year. And trap and neuter is the only effective and efficient management strategy to mitigate and manage the cat population. And it's a very humane surgical process in which cats are baited into traps with food.

The veterinarian performs a quick neuter surgery with proper equipment and medicines and the cat rests and then is released and the cats get a microchip and a year notch. And in colonies the cats that have a year notch is a sign of responsible management. So cats also have significant intrinsic medical value. Feral cats are adoptable.

They provide as assistance animals emotional support and comfort to special needs persons with disabilities. So as per the Fair Housing act, assistance animals provide emotional support and benefits a person to alleviate symptoms and identify.

Angie, your time's up. Thank you very much.

Effects of a person's disability.

Thank you.

We should get the trap and neuter funding mechanism. Thank you.

Jane Arnold in support. Tom Hollowock in support. Patty Trussell by zoom.

They're not present on student chair.

Vivian Tolner by zoom.

She's also not present on zoom.

Thank you very much. Okay, so there are 152 in support, four opposed and four comments. Members, are there any questions? Senator Richards.

Yeah. Thank you, Chelsea. Identify yourself.

Chelsea Arnott on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Okay, thank you, Chelsea. Chelsea, you made the comment about supporting the neutering side but not the release side. Could you comment on that please?

Yeah, of course. Thank you for the question. Vice Chair, we put together, I think it was in 2018 a council resolution talking about trap neuter release. And the science behind it is that it doesn't lead to a reduction in cat populations on the landscape.

And a lot of bills that either do spay and neuter attach it to trap neuter release or re release.

And so when it comes to that aspect of managing cat populations, the Hawaiian Invasive Species Council is against any type of re release or trap neuter release type of language in it because it's not scientifically proven to be a management strategy for reducing cat populations.

Given my vocation, I've looked into this quite a bit and I am aware of theoretical projection papers written theoretically that trap neuter release over time decreases population. The only ones I have seen that theoretically would work as if you had a static population with no other new Members coming in.

Are you aware of any other papers that are contrary to that statement?

I can look into it and I can work with our wildlife biologist over at Division of Forestry and Wildlife and see if there's been any new research that alludes or kind of touches on that question.

I'm not sure based on what we put together in the resolution, which was around four years ago, and that was based on the scientific information we had at the time. But I haven't checked into any recent information. So I'm happy to do that and provide it to the Committee.

I would be curious about that. I think the funding for spayneuter is severely needed. Yes, we need to do that. Okay, thank you. One more question. Sure. Actually not Chelsea, Humane Society.

Would you like me to answer what I know about the study question first.

Introduce yourself for the record.

Sorry. Thank you. Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society.

And you're spot on. Same question. Are you aware of any papers beyond the theoretical reduction that you would see with trap neuter that would allow a dynamic population? Because the only thing I've ever seen is it could work if we have no introduction of any other population. So comment on that.

Yes. So the studies that I've seen on both lethal control and trap neuter in terms of reducing the population are that similar benchmarks need to be met in terms of the percentage of the population that is either removed for euthanasia or is spayed and neutered and returned.

You have to meet around a 90% threshold in order to start to see a decline in population. And you have to prevent introduction of new animals to the population in both cases for either strategy to succeed.

I will say what we've seen on Oahu, which I find encouraging, is in the five years that we've had county funding for no fee, spay neuter for free roaming cats. The percentage of cats caregivers are taking care of that they report having been spayed and neutered has gone from 38% to 71%.

So with funding, I think we can make progress on that issue. But I think where we see common ground most often with conservation is that this measure, more importantly, will prevent new cats from being introduced to the landscape by making sure that our pet animals are spayed and neutered.

Okay. And that's. I mean, I'm with you. I think the more spay neuter we do for our pet animals. Absolutely. But I see nothing where trap neuter release does anything to help the environment and endangered species. So,thank you, Chair.

Senator Rhodes.

Or not.

So Just delving down a little more on the statistics. So not reducing is different than. Does that mean lower than it would have been otherwise, or do you get to zero population growth and you just stay the same? Or what exactly do you mean by reducing?

Maybe I can ask Jason Omick from. He has some of the numbers for us. I. I don't have it referenced here, and I apologize for that. And again, Chelsea, are not. On behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Yeah, so I'm sorry, go ahead.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Jason Omick, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Wildlife Program Manager.

Yes, I was just trying to figure out whether. Because there's. Is it compared reduce compared to what? Reduced compared to the upward trend, or can you get it to zero with spay, spay and neuter, or it just doesn't make any difference?

Well, I think there needs to be multiple tools in the workshop to get this done. From looking at previous research, it looks like the TNR doesn't significantly reduce the overall population unless sterilization rates exceed 75%, which is difficult to achieve in open environments. And so, you know, we're.

Yeah, so but if. Is it. Does it hold the. Does it hold the population steady?

No.

So it just keeps climbing. Does it climb as fast as it climbed before?

It's climbing, yeah, it'll climb faster, faster as. Because new animals are continuing to be introduced.

Okay. All right. Okay, thanks. Thanks. Thanks, Chairs.

Okay. Anyone else?

I have a quick question.

Senator De Corey.

Thank you, sir. So you guys looked at what Lanai is doing with the Lanai cat sanctuary? Yes, Anything planned like that, I mean, for. I would say Honolulu, because we have such a broad population, you know, because we only see one cat in Lanai City when I go there.

Yeah, thanks for the question, Senator. Chelsea Arnott, Hawaiian Basin Species Council. And I could ask Stephanie to come up here, too, because there is a coalition made up of conservationists and pet advocacy groups, including the Humane Society, that are looking at strategies where we can come together on how to better manage the cat populations on the landscape.

And we've definitely had participation from the Lanai cat sanctuary, and I think there's actual discussions happening about establishing one on Oahu. It's definitely an alternative to, you know, the cat colonies that are establishing and causing a lot of harm to native species and some of our recreating areas.

So, like Jason mentioned, there needs to be multiple tools in the toolbox. I mean, these are widespread cat populations that are on, you know, the borders of native ecosystems and also, like, attacking native species. So, yes.

Thank you. Chair.

Okay, anyone else? We had a late tester, but actually one of the experts on the possibility of an Oahu sanctuary, Hale, hallowed. Would you please come forward and just respond to Senator DaCoite's question.

Aloha, Senator Gabbard, Senator. Senator Rhodes, thank you for. And everybody, hello. Mahalo. Thank you for making this Bill. I mean, just even starting it. To answer your question.

State your name, please.

Oh, that's right. Forgot. I'm sorry. I'm Holly Holowach. I am the founder and President of Popoki Place Oahu Cat Sanctuary.

We are currently working very, very hard to secure land large enough to build a large scale sanctuary to be the Lanai Cat sanctuary of Oahu. We've been working on this for four years and we still are working. We're close to getting land, but not quite.

So if you want to support land, that would really help because we really want to make a difference. We know that spay neuter is critical to ending this crisis of overpopulation. Some people say, well, it won't work. How's it going to work? It's not going to be effective. If you don't do it, you will be really sorry.

Because every cat you don't spay and neuter can make 100 more. So, every time you do one, you're reducing that population from expanding and exploding even more. Do you realize that we only have had spay neuter available on this island for 25 years?

Spay neuter was not a thing for years, and then it became a thing and only people who could afford to do it for their pets did it. But now the Humane Society has made it open to the whole public and people are taking advantage of this.

There are thousands of people on this island that are trapping, spending their own money to spay neuter and time and effort, which is a lot, we need a Fund that people can support and choose to pay into. It's not one that you have to.

If you don't like cats and you don't want to help with that, you don't have to. But if you make it so we can, it will really make a difference.

And if I can get the sanctuary built, then we can start bringing in the ones that are from the endangered species areas, the beaches, the parks where they're going after the birds and the monk seals and herding other species.

Holly, thank you very much. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Appreciate your time.

Okay, we'll go into decision making. So you got the tax amendments and then blanking the appropriation, the date and putting in the Committee report the budget and finance concerns. We'll take a brief recess. Oh, never mind.

So we blown the old fashioned brief reset?

No, no, we're good. Okay.

Reconvening the 1 o'clock joint agenda of AEN, TCA and EIG. The chair's recommendation for AEN will be to pass with amendments from dotax, blanking the appropriation amounts, inserting it into the Committee report and defecting the date to July 1, 2050.

And we're also going to make note in the Committee Report Department of Budget and Finance's concerns and recommendation to consider alternative management and distribution methods. So for an any discussion.

Yes, just wanted to comment though I fully support the intent and the comments about Spay Neuter being critically important. Completely agree with that. And having a funding methodology I think also makes sense. My concern is that we get the funding going to the right place and so I think we've got time to work on.

So I appreciate what the chairs recommendations are. The articulation of it not supporting Trap Neuter Release is not in the Bill. So I'm going to be supporting it but with reservations because I still think it needs some work. So thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Chair, quick comment. I think this is something that, you know, we got to support moving forward. But I would like to say that you should meet with the chair of the Popo caucus and have that further discussion. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Okay. So Chair votes aye.

Vice Chair for an on the subject matter, SB 1023 passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes with reservations. Senator DeCoite.

Aye.

Senator Rhodes. Senator Awa.

Aye.

Chair, you have five in favor. Motion is adopted.

Thank you, Travers.

Thank you. Committee on Transportation, Culture, Arts, same recommendation.

Passed with amendments, Sir. Chair Lee. Vice Chair Inouye is excused. Senator Elefante. I vote aye. Senator DeCorte. Senator DeCorte. Chair, you have four ayes. Recommendations adopted in tca.

Meow. For the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental. Affairs, we'd like to have the same recommendation discussion. If not Senator Chang? I vote yes.

So for SB 1023, Chair's recommendation for the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental affairs is passive amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator DeCoite. Senator Richards.

Reservations.

Senator Favela is excused. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. Meow. The 1 o'clock agendas occurred. Thank you.

Good afternoon everyone. We're convening the joint committees on Transportation, Culture and the Arts and Agriculture and the Environment on our 1:01pm agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 224. First, we have a number of bills.

I just ask everybody to make sure your written testimony is submitted and we'll be limiting testimony to two minutes to make sure that we have time to get through everyone's comments that set up first to Senate Bill 1120 relating to transportation. Up first on 1120 is the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. Excuse me, Farmer Transportation. Sorry about that.

Vice Chair Members of the Committee, Tammy Lee, Deputy Director for the Department of Transportation. The DOT supports the intent of this measure. We still want to learn more about the economic impact to the government and to the public. And thank you for or our testimony. Here for any questions.

Thank you. Next is the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Biotechnology Innovation Organization in support. Coalition Earth in support. Testifying for. Oh,12 in support. Anthony Willingham. Are you with us? Oh, good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Shall it be good? Okay, I will. Thank you everybody. Good afternoon. I'm Anthony Willingham. I'm the State Government Affairs Manager at Electrify America. If you're not familiar, Electrify America we are one of the largest owner operators of a fast charging network for electric vehicles in the U.S. we have chargers in 47 states and D.C.

It feels like yesterday we opened our first station in Hawaii. It was about a year and a half ago and to date we've added we've got a total of three chargers in Hawaii.

I'm testifying in support of the state adopting a clean transportation fuel standard primarily because it is one of the most effective means of financing and incentivizing the transition to electrification to electricity as a transportation fuel. That investment in EV charging, the impacts cannot be overestimated.

Just how helpful that has been to not only building new stations, but improving and expanding on existing ones. Expanding on the services currently provided at our network. Today this industry is still very nascent and operates at the margins. So this is investment through the monetization of credits creates the resources necessary to help this industry grow and flourish.

I've submitted long form testimony for the record, but here again just to say we Electrify America wholeheartedly support the state adopting a clean fuel standard. And I'm happy to talk about this further but thank you all very much.

Thank you. Next is Hawaiian Electric. Comments par Hawaii. Comments Island Energy Services with comments and Growth Energy with comments. The only other person who signed up to testify in person is Cristina Cornejo. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs and Members. My name is Cristina Cornejo and I'm public affairs manager for Neste. We are here in support of the bill. I stand on my comments as written and happy to answer any questions, should you have any.

Thank you very much. That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions? Senator Richards?

Yeah, I guess our first test of fire we can get them back up.

Is that me? I'm still here.

Yeah. Yeah. That is though I support the initiative. I come from the Big Island and I always look at a lot of these things from a optic of agriculture. And as we are striving towards attaining these. What is your perspective when we're in the need of transportation for agriculture on a very large island?

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

Yeah. One of the problems we've run into when we're looking at electrifying when it comes to agriculture we don't have chargers. We are the remoteness of what we're talking about. And so though I support the intent and the direction on a large landscape that goes to high elevations rapidly. Have you looked at it from that perspective?

Yes. Okay, thank you. I understand exactly what you're saying. One of sort of the beauties of a clean fuel standard is that it incentivizes the. The construction of stations, the provision of charging services in sectors and areas where it may not have otherwise existed without a clean fuel standard.

So the ability to monetize those credits creates a financial incentive on our part to sell as much electricity as possible. Because selling kilowatt hours can be translated into credits which can then be monetized and that creates investment into. Into our charging network.

So if at a baseline the existence just the natural demand for let's call it medium and heavy duty charging, if that doesn't currently exist with a clean fuel standard and that incentive to sell electricity, it creates that incentive to and creates that demand for the provision of charging in.

In those sectors that are hardest to charge or hardest to electrify, sorry.

I think I got a partial answer on that.

So is there a question how. You know, put simply, electrify farm equipment.

Yeah. Long transportation where the replacement of a diesel engine in the remote areas where you're not near a charger and you won't build on there.

I'm not sure we have the technology yet and I've asked the different suppliers of electric ranch trucks to give me one and I'll tell them what's wrong with it in a couple of months. I haven't had any takers on that yet.

So I'll say, and I will admit to speaking outside of my lane here, but a clean fuel standard benefits tremendously electrification, but it also assists the transition or the reduction of carbon intensity from vehicles like the ones you're mentioning by increasing the availability of biofuels.

So while electrification might be in the far future for some of these vehicle classifications, in the interim, less carbon intense fuels are made available through the clean fuel standard, such that those vehicles, if they can't be electrified tomorrow, they can at least migrate to a more sustainable liquid fuel in the meantime.

Okay, I got more of an answer on that one, so I appreciate that. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, sorry. I would love to say, hey, we could electrify tractors, you know, tomorrow, but in the meantime we can maybe make them more sustainable and a clean fuel standard helps that.

Thank you, DOT. Please, will you guys be able to implement the provisions of this bill to adopt rules governing a clean fuel standard, alternative fuels in the state?

Like I said, we're still unsure, we're still learning about the science. We're going through our GHG reduction plan mid May, you know, as the Navahine Settlement requires us to issue it. So that's not something that I think, you know, I'm able to answer today. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Other questions, if not just one for Neste. Thanks. Just listening to the conversation I think earlier probably be helpful because from the testimony, this is already in place in several other states.

So I guess the question is ultimately in those states in rural areas and other things, and just I guess in general this has been in place for a few years now. So how's it working out?

Yeah, so cleanfield standard has been implemented. The first state in the US to implement it was California, which was well over a decade ago. And as you know, there's a lot of large farm equipment out in California. So what we have seen is they are utilizing now renewable diesel.

So renewable diesel is a drop in fuel which can be utilized in any current diesel engine. And it's got an 80% reduction in GHG currently and every day that's something we're working on, you know, increasing. So you've definitely seen that.

And for California alone, currently renewable diesel and biodiesel make up over 70% of the entire diesel pool in California. And that's happened over the last eight years. So you've seen kind of that transition, as Anthony was talking about, to other fuels. So it really does give consumer the ability to choose what is best for.

So if it's an EV and a personal vehicle, they can choose something there. Maybe it's hydrogen, maybe it's renewable diesel, sustainable aviation fuel. There's, you know, a ton of new products out on the market and that's really kind of the aim of this.

Okay, thanks. Thank you. Any further questions? If not. All right, thank you everyone. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 52 relating to carbon offsets, which requires DOT to assist and enable a person to voluntarily purchase a carbon offset for emissions resulting from their air travel. Testifying first is 350 Hawaii in opposition.

And Ramos in opposition. I don't think that's right. I thought I saw 350 always testifying in support on this, if I'm not mistaken. Well, let me just come back to that in a minute. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure? If not. All right, well, there's no one to ask questions of.

So why don't we move on to the next measure, SB586 relating to climate change which upgrades states buses to zero emissions by 2045. Testifying first is the state Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. In support, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Thank you. Public Utilities Commission. Thank you. Just for the record, I apologize the last two.

For the last Bill, SB52, those two testifiers were in opposition. Okay, moving on back to SB586. State procurement office, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Bonnie Kahakui, Administrator of the State Procurement Office. We support the intent of this Bill. Our only objection is the placement of the language. We believe that it'd be better fit in 103D412 as opposed to where it stands, the language now available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is the Wasted Energy Office.

Thank you. We also have testimony from Mayor Bisson from County of Maui with comments. 350 Hawaii in support. Coalition Earth in support. Two individuals, one in support and one in opposition. That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions? All right.

You know the requirements that are contained in this Bill. To convert to all zero emission buses by 2045. Is that doable?

So the DOT apologies, we did not submit testimony on this measure. What we do do is we provide pass through to the counties. I believe it's called the FTA 5311 program. Or maybe it's 53D339 low and no low. My apologies. You know what I mean?

So, so through I know that we do have a contract to do an assessment with the Maui, Kauai, Hawaii island counties to replace their aging fleet to the zero emission buses currently we have on order. I believe it is, I think it is three per county as well as two charging stations for each county.

There are also options for different size transit buses. But, that's my knowledge.

So I guess, you know, some of what even the mayor for Maui County is alluding to is, you know, it's, it's more of our costs on the infrastructure. You kind of have an idea just on the transition over. I mean we know everybody challenges on budget to do the upgrades and infrastructure.

You have an idea of what that would cost. I mean apparently he's not, you know, I can get back to you.

I know just, you know the RFP to do the assessment was pretty high and I do have the number of, you know, those charging stations and three vehicles for the transit agencies that I can get to you if you can please. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any further questions?

Just quick comment, Chair. Something we worked on when I was in county on the Big Island and the transition.

I think I like this because it sets a stake in the sand of when we need to get this done done by, you know, we struggled on the Big Island trying to decide if we're going to electrify or use fuel cells or use hydrogen, whatever the case may be. There was a good report written.

It goes through a lot of the cost questions that Senator Decoite was asking. It's written by SSFM for the County of Hawaii. So I might suggest if people are curious they could look there. Economically upfront cost was essentially twice as much, but if you amortize operational cost over a dozen years, it becomes about equitable.

So it makes economic sense to do it. Problem with the Big Island, we got to go high. And so those ones were looking at fuel cell or hydrogen itself. But anyway, just a comment, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. I don't mean for comment back but so I guess I would inflate that by 40% on Molokai and Lanai for the transportation as well.

So noted. Okay, Any further questions or comments? All right. It's not. I just wanted to make one announcement and I apologize. I realize on the hearing notice that was posted a number of days ago for this hearing, we had noted that testimony would be limited to one minute.

So we'll move to that standard, to be fair to everybody who had signed up accordingly. I apologize for that. But with that, let's move on to, we only have one Bill left. SB242 relating to, I'm sorry, I'm not the lead on this. Let me turn it over to my colleague in the Agriculture Environment Committee.

634, all Chair.

Okay. My apologies again. This is what happens when it's 1:44 in the afternoon and you haven't had sugar. Okay. SB634 relating to Marine. You can't blame old age either. I don't know. The gray's coming in.

SB 634 relating to marine passenger fees, which establishes a cruise ship passenger fee to be collected by DOT and used for projects benefiting cruise ships. Testifying first on 634 is the Department of Transportation.

Aloha Chairs. This is Dreana Kalili, Deputy Director of Transportation. We basically support the intent, but we already do this as a practice. We generate about $10 million a year from this revenue stream. No additional authorization from the statute is required for us to adjust the fee or use the fee for improvements.

And so while we support to generate additional revenue, we don't think the Bill is necessary.

Oh, you're, you're cutting out there. Was that it?

Yeah, that was it. Sorry.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Department of Budget and Finance with comments. The Attorney General. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chairs and Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Yvonne Shinmura. We've submitted comments. Thank you for the opportunity to do so. We're available for any questions.

Thank you. Next is a Norwegian cruise line.

Hi. Aloha Chairs Lee, Gabbard, Vice Chairs Inoue and Richards, and Members of the Committee. My name is Sandy Weir and I'm the Senior Director of Government Relations for Norwegian Cruise Lines Holdings. I did submit testimony and I do stand on my written testimony in opposition of the Bill.

I just wanted to remind Members of the Committee that there's already a passenger fee in existence that's imposed on every cruise ship passenger that visits Hawaii, and it's administered by the Department of Transportation.

While we do recognize the importance of climate change mitigation and the projects that have to be undertaken by the Department of Transportation, we'd like DOT to continue in its current capacity of administering fees. I'm available for any questions that the committees might have. Thank you.

Thank you. And lastly, we have testimony from Cruise Lines International and Hawaii Harbor Users Group in opposition. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure this afternoon? Are there any questions?

Sure. I have A question if Deputy Director for harbors is still there. Yeah, so. So my question is, so if we pass this Bill and it's always a double edged argument. Well, we already do that, so. Okay, so that if we pass the Bill, then you'll keep doing it.

I mean, it doesn't make any difference one way or the other.

So I think the issue with passing of the Bill if, you know, in our written testimony, the creation of the additional special fund basically forces us to use the revenue that we would collect for specific projects that would exclusively benefit the crew's passive and are not fundamentally climate change projects.

And so I think there's like a little bit of a mismatch in that language related to the new special fund. And I think the authorities that we already have give us the greatest flexibility to be most responsive to all our private harbor users, cruise lines and cargo carriers.

Okay, all right, thank you. Thanks, Chair.

Any further questions?

So, Dreana, how much in revenue you guys estimate the state would collect by imposing the cruise ship passenger fee?

So right now we assess $15 per passenger that comes to Honolulu harbor and $8 per passenger that comes to neighbor islands, understanding that on a single cruise itinerary, one passenger might come to four different ports, like for the Port of America, for example, we collect, I think it's $39 per passenger.

And that's how we get to the $10 million Bill was implemented and if we applied it in the same manner that we applied the existing passenger fees, I estimate maybe about $8 million. But there is some lack of clarity in the language in the Bill.

It's unclear to me whether I'm supposed to assess the $10 fee per passenger at one time for every port. So I'll just kind of lay that out there to clarify how I arrived at that.

And then based on those fees, what kind of infrastructure projects would the fees support?

So if I read the Bill, how it's presented, I'm supposed to use that revenue only for cruise passenger incubators, which is the berth where cruise ships, you know, operate and any amenities for cruise passengers, not for cargo vessels. So those are projects that we would use the revenue for. The projects of that nature cost much more than $8 million.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any further questions? If not, since we had just one extra minute, I apologize again for the mix-up on the testimony length. If any of the folks who were just testifying in that one minute had anything else they wanted to add, you know, we try to be open here.

So you're welcome to right now, if you're still there or in the audience. Otherwise, we'll move on to the next measure. So let me turn it over to Senator Gabbard from AEN.

Thank you, Chair.

SB242, relating to foreign ownership of agricultural land, prohibits foreign entities from owning, leasing or holding a controlling interest in more than an unspecified number of acres of agricultural land, limits the lease term for agricultural land by foreign entities and requires foreign entities that own or lease interest in agricultural lands to file an annual report with the Department of Agriculture. Testifiers,

first up is Attorney Generals and been informed that they will not be here this afternoon. They submitted comments. Next is Hunter Heaivilin from the Hawaii Farmers Union.

Chair, we'll have chairs, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Hunter Heaivilin here on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. HFU supports this measure, but want to highlight that our focus is economic. We welcome participation in our agricultural markets, but we are concerned by entities who, as signaled by the scale of their investment, seek to dominate and control those markets.

Frequently, our goals for increased food production are lifted up as a rationale for action. This goes back quite some time to at least the 1850s when low productivity, as perceived by some, was used as a rationale for white settlements across the islands. It did then, as I believe it often does now.

Such arguments often allied the purposes for which we've sought increased production. Why have we set these goals? Local control, economic development, environmental quality are three that come to mind. Allowing local primary goods to be controlled by single entities, especially when they have globally spanning investments, is far from the local control sought.

And the net effects of these scales of production have been found to hollow out marketplaces and increase economic harms for family farms and rural communities while consolidating benefits to distant shareholders.

In an open market economy, there are precious few mechanisms at your disposal and we hope that you will apply this one to place reasonable control on over our marketplaces under your time.

Thank you very much. Next is Lauren Zirbel from the Hawaii Food Industry Association on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom.

Chair, thank you. And Nicole Galase on Zoom from the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council.

Thank you. Chairs, vice chairs, Members of the committees, I'm Nicole Galase, on behalf of the Hawaii Cattleman's Council. We submitted our testimony in support of this Bill. However. However, we do have concerns about how this might affect current foreign owned land ag lands that are keeping these lands in active agriculture. Thank you.

Thank you. And also on zoom, we have Robert Bentz. Is Robert here?

They're also not available on Zoom.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else Wishing to testify on this measure. Chair? Please.

Hello, Chair Members of the Committee, Cedric Gates, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The Department stands on its written comments for this measure and supports the intent. Mahalo.

Thank you very much.

Oh, yes please.

Give him some chocolate.

Aloha. Chairs. Vice Chair. Members of the Committees, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. My apologies. Chair, we thought we submitted testimony. It may have been late. We did submit written testimony. If you don't have it, we'll make sure it gets to the Committee. Chair, we respectfully oppose this measure.

Farm Bill is an organization that absolutely is committed to ensuring that agricultural lands remain in agriculture production. You've heard us say that over and over in different bills, different sites, subjects on agriculture, agriculture production needs to be a primary use on agricultural lands. Everything else is accessory. I know this isn't necessarily about that.

We're just concerned about the unintended consequences of this Bill. We know that there are ag lands that are owned by foreign entities. Some of them are producing food, feed, fiber, fuel. If I read some of the testimony, I think 15% of our state lands or ag lands are owned by foreign entities.

We prefer that we focus instead of restrictions on incentives and incentivizing our farmers and ranchers and their productivity and their profitability in order to ensure that they're not looking to sell their land so that they can continue those lands and ag production, continue the succession plans, and not put these lands up for sale.

We absolutely want local farmers and ranchers to own their land, but again, we're concerned about unintended consequences of this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Brian. Anyone else? Members, any questions? We had 65 in support, four opposed and two comments. Any questions? Members?

Yeah, I got a question. Senator Richards, start with DOA.

Good afternoon. Thanks. Introduce yourself. Cedric Gates from the Department of Agriculture.

Has DOA looked at this question? One of the arguments of having any ownership is investment into industries. Has DOA posed that question? Given what's going on, the concern. Because I think the concern is warranted. But have you looked at that? Has that question been posed?

I know within the Department, we've been discussing our role and our position when it relates to this measure. I believe the Department's open to working with the Attorney General in terms of collecting the data that we're going to need to be able to present to you folks in regards to this. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair. And Chair, did you say we don't have the Attorney General available because the question they raised a constitutionality question. All right, thank you, Chair.

Question DOA, please. So, so don't you guys. Thank you. Don't you guys already have a rule there that you guys don't allow the leasing of your lands to foreign corporations?

I would have to look into our rules and get back to you, but that's something I can definitely do.

I believe about 10 years ago you guys have rules that does not allow for incorporations to no longer hold lease titles to your lands. Can you get that information back to us? Yes, I think that is really crucial.

The other question is can you guys implement the provisions of this Bill and if yes, what additional resources would you guys need?

Yes. So I believe we are looking at the legalities from with the Attorney General on how we can pursue getting this information and then being able to release that information to the public. So that's first and foremost.

And then in terms of the positions, of course, we would ask for more positions to execute this measure or maybe repurpose the existing positions that you guys cannot fill.

Yes. So since you have had conversation with the Attorney General, what are the legal problems with this Bill?

That is something I would lean on our subject matter expert for their opinion.

So with the Department of Ag, how much land outside from what you guys carry under capacity, because you guys know exactly how many farms that exist in the state, how much of those are foreign lands or in foreign entitlement? And of those lands under foreign entitlement, how much are actually being under production or cultivation?

That's something that I would have to get back to you on, Senator, but I would gladly get that into an email format and send it over to you.

That would be really important for me to know before, you know, decision making on this because that would decide whether or not food production would be doubled or tripled. Okay, how about this question? How many farms right now produce food under foreign entities?

That is something I would have to get back to you, Senator, but thank you for those great questions and I'll respond.

Can you get back to us? I think that's super important for this Committee to know.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Chair.

I'm sorry, Representative Gates, to call you back up. Do you know. No, no, no, no. So I'm just reading off foreign ownership of agricultural website here.

It says currently states that have a law prohibiting or restricting foreign ownership and investment in private farmland include, and it's like 25 states, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Why it would appear that other states have done this.

So, I mean, I would prefer that it be foreign ownership of condos, but I'm not. Why are you? I. I'm sorry. I guess I'm asking. I mean, I know you want to hear the Attorney General's opinion, but with that as background. The Attorney General's opinion, doesn't that suggest that we could do this if we wanted to?

I think the Department would be open to seeing what the possibilities are in relates to prohibiting foreign ownership of ag lands. Again, we'd fall back on the Attorney General's recommendation to determine the legalities of it, but it's something that I think we should look into for sure. Okay. Thanks.

Why is it that. Why is it that departments would have to follow the ag when it's one opinion? We have 24 plus other states that already look at the same Bill and they pass it, but ours says, ah, it's not legal. Why would the departments. Why? If we care about our agricultural lands

Every Department generally has like a deputy Attorney General that we rely on. t

But you're a local boy. You come from agriculture. You're in the house. And Brian's back there opposing this thing. But my question is why, if we care about our agricultural lands, this is common sense.

Well, the Department doesn't oppose this measure. We're offering comments and that comments are in relating to our legal advice from our legal counsel. So that's kind of where our hands are tied with this. Until we get that we can determine whether we'd be at risk of liability if we move forward on this measure without getting legal.

Why wouldn't the departments take a step and say, this is so important, Attorney General. Look at these other states that have already protected it. We oppose your opinion on the legality fight for this thing. That's how important it is to the DOA.

I think that the Department will entertain that and look into how we can be of support to this. I think our goal is obviously to increase our food production beyond our regulatory requirements, but I believe that this is something we would be interested in entertaining. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay.

For the agenda before us, we'll take a quick recess so we can get quorum and we'll be back shortly for decision making.

Good afternoon.

We're reconvening the joint committees on Transportation, Culture and Arts and Agriculture and the environment on our 1:01pm agenda. We're here for decision making up first to Senate Bill 1120. Transportation like to recommend moving us forward.

I think there's some good discussion going here, but would like to pass with amendments defecting the date this goes to the ways and means Committee. We'd like to just see if we can get some testifiers to the table to answer a couple of the questions that were being posed here.

It seems the other states are already doing this and doing it at a cost benefit. So we'd like to see if we can get some actual numbers. So with that, are there any discussion on this measure? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to SB52, related carbon offsets, which requires the DoT to enable a person to voluntarily purchase a verified carbon offset for CO2 emissions. Note this goes on to the ways and means Committee. There are only two testifiers on this which was somewhat surprising.

Folks are amenable like to move it on with a defective date just to see if there's more testimony on this because it seems like a fairly simple thing. So recommend passing it with amendments with a defective date. Is there any discussion on this? If not Acting Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 586 relating to climate change. This is upgrading zero emissions bonus. I'd like to recommend moving this forward with amendments adopting the state Procurement office recommendations and defecting the date to July 1st, 2050. And those recommendations were just technical in nature. Regarding where in the statute the substance of the measure lives. Any discussion on this? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We're going to Senate Bill 634 relating to Marine passenger fees regarding cruise ships. I appreciate the conversation here. We'll follow up with the DOT deputy regarding this based on, I think some of the efforts they have underway. For the moment, we'll defer this measure.

Finally going, let me turn it over to Senator Gabbard and the A Committee for the last measure.

On the last measure, SB242 relating to phone foreign ownership of agricultural land. Based on the testimony and some additional questions for the Department of Attorney General, we've decided to defer decision making until Friday, February 7th at 1:05pm here in room 224.

For the Committee on Transportation, Culture and Arts, be the same recommendation deferring decision making for our Committee though till Tuesday the 11th at 3:02pm in room 224. With that, we're adjourned.

Okay, we are now convening the 103 agenda for AEN and we'll start off with SB 140 relating to invasive species, prohibiting the importation of firewood into the state except for firewood that meets certain standards. Requires firewood that is imported in the state from another state to be certified and labeled as heat treated.

And first up is Department of Ag. Thank you very much. Chelsea Arnott from Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee, Chelsea Arnott, on behalf of the Hawaiian Invasive Species Council, we support this measure. We participated in numerous national forums about, you know, firewood being a high risk pathway. And so this is just a really easy win-win situation for the reduction of pests that could be carried on firewood.

But also recognizing the comments made by the Department of Agriculture and the implementation of it. Mahalo.

Thank you. Robert Ha from DLNR. Thank you. Mayor Bissen is in support from Maui, Christy Martin from CGAPS.

Hello, Chair Gabbard, Vice Chair Richards, Members of the Committee. Christy Martin, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species CGAPS. CGAPS is in strong support of this measure. Firewood coming from other states is a high risk pathway for the introduction of pests. This is a fairly straightforward fix.

And I wanted to actually address some of the comments that we noted in Department of Agriculture's testimony. Department of Agriculture actually started working on this in 2021 and sampled some of the firewood from Safeway that had been shipped from another state. It was found to contain live pests.

So some of the language in their testimony, top of page two, they suggest striking and the transportation in state, within the state of firewood. We request actually that you retain that language and instead insert and the transportation of such firewood within the state.

Because what we found is that firewood gets shipped in and contained and it's really hard for them to inspect, to look for that certificate. Therefore, when they go to a store, if they do see it for sale, they would then be able to regulate it at that point.

It in no way, this language in no way attempts to regulate the interstate or, sorry, the intrastate movement of firewood. This is really focused on things coming from domestic and gives the Department the tools to be able to address it if they see it on that grocery store shelf without that certificate. Mahalo. Sorry, that was long winded.

That's okay. Thank you, Christy. Anyone else wishing to testify on SB 140 in person or online? Members, any questions?

Just a verification, Chair.

Okay, come back up. Again, I look at it from a little bit different lens. You say firewood, I say fence post. So to verify, you're saying no prohibition in trust state.

No. Christy Martin, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. This is very narrowly focused on firewood coming from other states in the US into Hawaii, should be heat treated or another measure that the Department can describe.

Yeah, I just wanted to verify that because you had made comments about comments, so.

Yes, and this was clarifying that the language as it's drafted is intended to allow the Department to regulate it if they see it on the store shelf instead of.

Okay, yeah. All right.

Because they can't look in all the containers.

Okay, thank you.

Question for Department of Ag. So the Bill calls for certain exemptions. How would the Department of Ag determine and approve those exemptions for firewood that poses no unacceptable risk?

So. It would really depend. So I think heat treatment is the. Oh, sorry. Jonathan Ho, Plant Quarantine Branch Manager. Heat treatment is the standard that is used and the exemptions could be for other treatments, however unlikely.

Fumigation, for example, or if it's produced in such a way where it couldn't be infested. So I think a lot of it is designed to give the Department the ability to manage some of these exemptions on a case by case basis.

But the, you're talking about the 160 degrees for 75 minutes, right?

Yes, that's the federal standard.

That's the stand, that's the federal standard. Okay, thank you.

Chair, can I ask one question? So Justin, how much firewood is important to the state and are they all heat treated?

The majority are heat treated already, but not all.

How much do you guys estimate it will cost to inspect the far away ensure that they're heat treated?

So one of the challenges is is that a lot of it is not necessarily, it's, I guess it's imported more as a. What would you call it? Like, as a way to kind of incentivize you to buy other things. I don't know what that term is.

So like for example in a place that's cooler they'll, you know, they'll sell the firewood so that you can buy marshmallows and cookies and crackers and stuff like that. So it's really hit or miss in terms of how it's imported. There, stores may or may not have it at any, any given time.

And I think from the standpoint, because it's not necessarily a traditional agricultural good, from the extent that it's like fresh produce or it's in, in a refrigerated container, any store could have it. So going out to inspect at importation is somewhat of a challenge from the standpoint of it can be anywhere anytime.

So I know that we're looking at firewood that is imported from out of state. How you guys address the firewood, this case, Kia Awe that is transferred back and forth interisland wise which is why we have this spread of fire ants, Corky frogs. How are we addressing that?

So right now the regulations do not require the inspection of firewood. So non-propagative plant material is only subject to random inspections either at time of departure, port of departure or port of entry. So we do have random inspections that occur at the port.

So if you were to find it, you could inspect it and if it were found to be infested with a pest you could take action. But there's no requirement that says that it must be inspected prior to movement.

Should we consider that being the fact that we're trying to do biosecurity and prevention or just wait to take the food loan and then we're going to look for more money to try and,

Yes, the inclusion of firewood or I guess other goods as requiring inspection can be done. We just finished Chapter 472 which manages interrailing movement and meet permanent regulations for CRB and doing something similar for firewood could be done.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, next measure is SB 330 relating to invasive species prevention, authorize the Department of Ag to enforce quarantines issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or another state. First up is Department of Ag. Thank you. Chelsea Arnott from HISC.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Chelsea Arnott, on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council, we'll stand on our written testimony in support. And just recognizing that there is already a great collaborative relationship between USDA, APHIS, and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

And this just kind of bolsters the ability for them to do inspections, especially when we have these growing industries like the citrus industry here in Hawaii. This is really protect Hawaii and those crops from pests that are impacting other areas of the nation that we don't have those same protections for. Mahalo.

Thank you, Chelsea. Travis Moon or Christopher leong from the AG's office.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General Travis Moon. We provided our written comments on a Supremacy clause issue. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Travis. Hunter Hevlin, Hawaii Farmers Union. Thank you. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

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

Thank you, Brian. Christy Martin from CGAPS.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Christy Martin, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. We're in strong support of this. We note that the Department actually needs the authority to enter into this agreement. This measure also makes it clear and prohibits the importation into the State of items from a quarantine area that are under quarantine.

So it puts the onus back outside of the state before it gets here. And noting the AG's Supremacy Clause, we do include in here some language that clarifies why this is not prohibited by federal law. It's actually expressly allowed. So. Well, I'm here for questions. My legal expert is here for more deeper questions. Stephanie Easley, thank you.

Thank you very much. Jeanette Burdick is in support. Weilani Naipo is in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Any questions, Members?

Quick question for DOA. Jonathan, have you guys seen invasive species that come into the state because you guys do not have authority or you guys don't have current authority or to enforce quarantines issued by the DOA?

So the, generally from the domestic or, sorry, from the mainland. We really haven't seen so much of that. It's more from foreign origin. And that one. Yeah. The Plant Protection act basically preempts us from, from inspections.

So if it is farm, what is these invasive species that come into the state due to the lack of authority.

So it's more to do with the way that the, the federal, the fed-managed pests. They have actionable pests and non-actionable pests. So if it's non-actionable, they don't take action. And you know, a lot of the actionable pests are designed for CONUS, the United States, not necessarily for Hawaii.

So depending on the commodity, sometimes we are able to get inspection inspections of those goods after they enter into domestic commerce. But that's not necessarily the case a lot of times because again, like I said, we're preempted.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, Subject. Actually, you can bring up your subject matter expert. A little bit deeper on this supremacy deal.

Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. With respect to. So the Plant Protection Act prohibits a state from regulating any plant pest, noxious weed, or biological control agent that the Federal Government chooses to regulate.

If the Federal Government doesn't have a regulation on it, then the state can issue its own regulation related to interstate commerce. There is an exception to that preemption issue for regulations that are equal to and do not exceed the federal requirement. The issue that we have here in Hawaii is, we'll take citrus because that's the big issue.

]So there's citrus quarantines, and it doesn't have to have an active pest. The USDA has said these type of articles from within the quarantine area are likely to be able to move this plant disease. And it's not detectable. So these type of articles cannot be moved interstate.

They might not have visible signs of the pest, but it's a federal prohibition. When our state agriculture inspectors get that material, they do not have the authority to enforce a federal law. They can't even hold it while they try to figure out if it violates the federal quarantine. And these federal quarantines are made by experts. They're complicated.

You know, latitude and longitude. This would allow them to hold the material while they contacted USDA and figured out if it violated it.

Okay.

And.

Yep. All right.

Do you want anything with respect to other state quarantines or.

No, we can talk about that. Yeah, I'm curious, but we'll talk offline.

Okay, thank you.

So we had 6 in support on 330 and 0 opposed, with 2 comments. Moving on to the next measure and just to let everyone know, we have a 2:45 hard stop. So if you would like to stand on your testimony, that would be appreciated. We do have a files. So recipe 849 relating to wildlife conservation.

Increases penalties and fees for taking and killing indigenous species of aquatic life, wildlife and land plants that are native to the state. Designates penalties for the taking, harming or killing of an eel. And first up is BLNR on zoom or?

I have someone on zoom, but Jason Oliver, Division of Fish and Wildlife BLNR will stand by our testimony in support.

Thank you. Kathy Gogel from Animal Rights Hawaii in support. Ron Tubbs in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? And Members any questions? So on this measure, three in support, zero opposed. We'll move on to the final measure is SB523 relating to agricultural biosecurity.

Requires the Department of Ag to establish and administer a biosecurity fencing cost sharing program. First up is Department of Ag. In support, Hunter Heaivilin, Hawaii Farmers Union? Hawaii Farmers Union testimony in strong support. Thank you, Hunter. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Making sure the Hawaii Farm Bureau was done on this written testimony in support.

Thank you, Brian. Nicole Galase from the Hawaii Cattleman's Council.

Thank you. The Hawaii Cattleman's Council stands on its testimony and support.

Thank you. Nicole and Sarah Moore, Nancy Moser, Angelica Malone are all in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Any questions? We had seven in support, zero opposed, zero comments. Okay, so we'll go into decision making on these this agenda. Let's see. So on the first one, Members, SB140 on invasive species.

On the firewood issue, prohibiting the importation of firewood in the state except for firewood to meet certain standards. So sheriff's recommendation will be to pass with the amendments from the Department of Ag. Any discussion? Share votes Aye.

On the subject of Senate Bill 140, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator Decoite.

Senator Rhodes.

Aye.

Aye.

Senator Awa? Aye. 5 in favor. Motion is adopted.

Thank you, Members. Next is SB330 relating to invasive species. Department of Ag to enforce quarantines issued by USDA. On this one, the recommendation will be to pass with the amendments from the Attorney General's Office. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

On Senate Bill 330, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes Aye. Senator Decoite, aye. Senator Rhoadee, Senator Awa. Aye. Charity of five in favor. Motion is adopted.

Thank you, Members. SB849, relating to wildlife conservation, increasing the penalties and fees for taking and killing indigenous species of aquatic life, wildlife and land plants that are native to the state. On 849, the recommendation will be to pass with tech amendments. Are there any discussion? Chair Boats. Aye.

On Senate Bill 849, passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator Decoite? Aye. Senator Rhodes? Aye. Five in favor. Motion adopted.

Thank you. Members. On the final measure of this agenda, SB523, relating to agricultural biosecurity, Department of Ag to establish administer a biosecurity fencing cost sharing program. On 523 the recommendation will be to pass with amendments. We'll be blanking the appropriation, inserting it into the Committee report and defecting the date to July 1st, 2050. And there's also some tech amendments. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

Senate Bill 523 passing with amendments. Chair both sides. Vice Chair, both sides. Senator Decoite? Aye. Senator Rhoads? Aye. Senator Awa? Aye. I have five in favor. Motion is adopted.

Thank you, Members.

And that concludes the agenda. Okay.

Calling to order the 1:05pm agenda AEM. We have one measure on this agenda for decision making. It's SB1185, establishing the Department of Ag. A working group to review and make recommendations on amending or repeating unnecessary or obsolete laws pertaining to agriculture.

Unfortunately, we do not have all the information that we were reaching out for, so we will have to defer decision making until Friday, February 7th, 2025 at 1:03pm here in room 224. Thank you, Members.

And that adjourns 105 AD SA.