House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon everyone. We're convening the Committee on Commerce and Consumer. Consumer Protection and Commerce. I always get those mixed up. It is Thursday, February 20, 2025 2:06 pm in Conference Room 329. My Vice Chair will be handling the testimony today. Vice Chair?

Okay, we're just going to start with a little housekeeping. So in order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two minute time limit per testifier. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify.

And after your testimony is complete, the Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits.

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

Please avoid using any trademark or copyright images and please refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. With that, we will start with our first measure, House Bill 850 relating to condominiums. And first up we have Community Association Institute in support.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. CAI stands in its support of HB 50 as it provides greater participation by owners and voting at annual meetings. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have the Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians in support.

Good afternoon Vice Chair and chair Committee Members. My name is Steve Glenstein testifying on behalf HSAP Legislative Committee. I believe I've put a little bit more extensive written testimony but we needed to kind of take the lawyering out of it a little and separate it into sections. So the first part is the in person meeting.

The in person meeting is not really much of an issue. The board can decide the type of voting. The second one is for meetings which are not held in person. We felt it was good to make this current legislation really clear about the owners are approving for avoiding a meeting if you're skipping a meeting.

Of course if you have a emergency you always want to be able to get a decision making process to give you a little information on electronic voting. We've had 83-year-olds vote electronically before, it can be done. Some of them surprised me with their smartphones and the election is already in the statute.

You know, it's just a matter of cleaning it up and fixing one of the 60 BA problems which hurt a client that was trying to get a loan approval for fixing their water. And I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. And next up to testify, we have Greg Masakian with comments on Zoom.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I do support the intent of this Bill. I strongly support the intent of any Bill that's going to provide additional clarification and ability for condominium owners to be able to vote properly.

What I do see as a concern, and I'm sorry for my late comments, it was in the middle of the night. I have one spelling error I just noticed when I looked at it.

But what I do have a concern with when I read through this is that there's more that needs to be done in this particular amendment. And unfortunately, one of the biggest things and problems that I see, and I've experienced this at my condominium association, is an abuse of power for these meetings, these special association meetings.

So if you look at the Chapter 514B-121, board president seems to have the ability to call the special meeting for whatever he wants. And it's been used in a retaliatory way where I live at my condominium association. So I've experienced it firsthand. It should never be allowed. And this chapter, 514B-121 should be amended properly.

If it's possible to defer this, I can opine on that. But if not, when it crosses over, I'll opine on the other side. But this is a very important aspect of this chapter and this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all I have who registered to testify online or in person on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this Bill? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for Mr. Emery. Given the expanded opportunities to conduct meetings and vote on issues coming up for these associations, why would an association want to use proxy instead of electronic and all the other ways, all the other mechanisms? Given if this Bill passes, do you think less people would be using proxies and because we're making it easier.

Let me see if I can answer this briefly and to the point. Associations are private organizations created by statute where associations have a contractual relationship with the owners, but the owners have a very important role because their investment, it's their personal property.

Properties have been used since the 14th century back to the trade in the Mediterranean to give a person a right who can't be at a meeting, a right to be heard and pick somebody of their choice. It's not by statute someone gets to be their representative.

That person who cannot be there, who has an important role in the community because he owns there, can pick somebody he chooses and trusts to give him their voting rights and important decisions being made before the meeting. Based on the statute, all condominiums have to have annual meetings and have this chance to discuss Association business.

So I'm not opposed to proxies. I think it's a personal choice of the owner of who they want to or not give a proxy to. Did I answer your question?

Yes, to a certain extent. How do you read this one new line that says. One second, I just saw it. I apologize. Okay, I lost it. But yeah, so I was just. Again, my comment was.

Given the accessibility of meetings that are being laid out in this Bill, could you understand why then certain other people would have issues with proxies? Because it feels like you're going out of your way to get a proxy when people can have more input in the live discussion.

Let's remember this. As of December 31, 2023 there were 2,183 condominium associations. More than 50% were less than 50 units. These smaller associations shouldn't be burned with all the expense. And, you know, they don't have the same issues at their annual meetings that maybe a 400 unit project may have.

So I think that proxies is a way to give people a right to be heard and be represented. It doesn't have to be used. They have this new Bill we're proposing, HB 850, that allows electronic voting in certain circumstances, but we shouldn't prohibit proxies because it's been around since the 14th century.

As any of you who may own stock in a privately or a publicly held corporation, you get every year a proxy request from their board so business can be conducted as required by law.

So I'm not in favor of doing away with proxies, but I am in favor of expanding the rights of people to participate through voting and electronic meetings.

Any other questions Members? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have House Bill 48, House draft 1 relating to coffee labeling. We have Department of Agriculture in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair. And Members of the Committee, Leo Obaldo, administrator, Quality Assurance Division, testifying on behalf of Hawaii Department of Agriculture. We stand on our written testimony in strong support. And I'm available for questions if you have any.

Thank you. That's all I have registered to testify on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have House Bill 1370. House Draft 1 relating to taxation. We have Department of Taxation with comments. Standing on comments.

For anyone else who wishes to stand our testimony, could you please come up to the microphone just so everyone can see and hear you. Next, we have Maui Brewing Company in support.

Aloha, chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thanks for having me today. You could probably see the. My background today brought a kind of just a visual of what we're talking about today. So behind me, you see five different kegs. It's interesting that I got to be backwards here.

These three are currently taxed as draft beer even though they're served from the same faucet when you go to your local restaurant. Whereas these two, these two over here, are taxed almost double the rate being served through the very same faucet line. Now, I think this dates back decades and decades.

The year I was born, 1978, there were about 89 breweries in the entire country. And I think even as a kid, I remember walking into a restaurant. The average restaurant had one or two taps. You didn't have the variety that you currently see in today's world with the craft beer movement and all these smaller local breweries.

So now that we have almost 10,000 breweries in our country, and the customer, the consumers, want choice, Especially in Hawaii, where we have very little storage room. Restaurants, bars have had to use these smaller kegs to be able to offer what the consumer wants, which is that choice.

You know, one of these larger big kegs, if you will, above 7 gallons, takes up a much larger footprint than the smaller kegs do. Now, all we're saying is draft beer, if it's truly draft beer and is served out of a faucet, we think it should be taxed as draft beer.

I'd also like to note that encouraging draft beer sales is really important because it is the most sustainable solution. Imagine the largest keg that you see in this picture here holds about 124 pints of beer.

So you're talking about a significant volume that if it were packaged, it would have a lot more litter, if you will, to deal with a lot more recycling, we hope, at least. So, you know, by encouraging draft beer, we're encouraging more sustainability. About 86% of beer sold in Hawaii in draft is actually done in these larger kegs.

So we're talking about a small percentage overall. Now we're talking all beer, but with local breweries like myself, we average about 30%, in some cases 100% of beer sold through 5 gallon kegs. So I think the intent here is just to clarify that draft beer is really anything served out of a faucet.

And the five gallon keg size, which is commonly referred to as a sixtal, should be taxed the same as its bigger brother and sisters in the seven gallon or more range. I hope that clears it up. If there's any questions, of course, I'd be happy to answer those. And thank you so much for hearing the testimony today. Aloha.

All right, thank you. That's all I have who registered to testify in this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have House Bill 1422 House draft 1 relating to motor carriers. First up, we have Public Utilities Commission with comments.

Good afternoon. PUC stands on its written testimony with comments.

Thank you. Next we have DLNR State parks. Comments.

Yeah. Good afternoon. Kurt Cottrell, administrator. We also just stand on our comments and kind of defer to the PUC because this is in their wheelhouse. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Hui Maka'āinana o Makana in support.

Yeah, can you hear me? Chair? Vice Chair. Hello?

We can hear you.

Okay. Aloha. Chipper Wickman. I'm the secretary and one of the founding board Members of the Hui Maka'āinana o Makana n Hyena.

I stand on my written testimony, but just want to add that a lot of places right now are looking to Hyena as a leader in what we've done to manage and create a regenerative tourism model.

A big, big part of that is our partnership with Hanalei Initiative and the standing up of this shuttle system, which helps bring people into the park in a sustainable and manageable way. But these are, this is a really a complex system that ultimately was set up to benefit the resource.

Our Malamaina work that the Hui is doing in the park, which is in the background of my background here in Zoom. So I understand there's, you know, there's issues in terms of trying to clarify definitions, etc. I defer to my colleague Joel Guy, who's the President of the Hanalei Initiative. I think his written testimony was very clear.

And, you know, I just really hope that we can continue to advance the idea of nonprofit community based organizations like ours being able to come up with these solutions and not be managed under The PUC tariff system, which is really, I think, intended for a different animal than these community based organizations.

So I'm available for any questions, if you have any. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, we have the Hanalei Initiative in support. That's all I have who registered to testify. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Nope. Seeing none. Let's on to the, let's move on to the next measure.

Next up, we have House Bill 874, House Draft 2, relating to child performers. First up, we have Department of Labor Industrial Relations with comments.

Aloha, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun, Members of the Committee. David Rodriguez with the Department of Labor Industrial Relations. We stand in our written comments. And while we appreciate the merits of this bill, it's not in our wheelhouse. Therefore, we had offered amendments. I mean not amendments, but offered statutes to the Minors Act for the Committee's consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have SAG-AFTRA Hawaii in support.

Hello. My name is... My name is Mericia Palma Elmore, and I'm the Hawaii Executive Director for SAG-AFTRA, we are the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. We're standing on our testimony and support and just wanted to thank this, this Committee and the committees before it for writing this, seeing this, and opening the conversation. I understand the testimony from DLIR, but the fact that we're talking about it and doing what we can to see how we can protect youngsters and also their, you know, their financial stability in the future. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next, we have Pride at Work Hawaii in support. Not present. We have IATSE Local 665 in support. Not present. And we have Shereen Balles in support. Not present. Is there anyone else? That's all I have registered to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

This is Greg Misakian on Zoom.

Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Misakian.

Thank you, Chair. I'm just hearing this and listening to this for the first time. I didn't have a chance to review, but I'm actually a SAG-AFTRA must join. I did some acting work in the Bay Area, and I'm very familiar with some of the aspects of child actors. I worked in the industry for a number of years and I did help produce a couple of small projects.

But I would think that, unless I'm missing something, I would have thought this would already have been a requirement on islands here. Maybe it's state by state specific, but I do fully support this bill from what I heard and what I've looked at quickly, and I hope that you do go forward and pass it. Thank you.

Thank you. Oh, please go ahead.

Aloha. I was in the wrong room. My name is Shereen Balles. I just need a breath. I am here to... Shereen Balles. I'm an actress. I've been an actress for 15 years. And I've seen children in the... Oh, my gosh. I've seen children in the, in the holding area. And it's important, I feel that the parents and the guardians have the ability to establish this. My gosh, I can't believe I can't even talk. But anyways, I'm in support of this bill. I have children of my own. I have four children.

And it's important that these children are supported and blessed in a way that when they become adults, they can actually utilize the earnings that they make when they are acting on stage or whatever it might be on TV and movies and things like that. So thank you so much for hearing me. I appreciate you for letting me take my breath. But please, please do, please do pass this bill. Mahalo nui. Aloha.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Questions, Members?

For Mrs. Balles. Yes. So thank you. Thank you for testifying. I noticed that in this bill they carve out social media influencers who may be minors. Is there... If one of your children, I mean, three of your children were actors and one was a social media influencer, do you think that they should all have some money set aside for when they become adults?

As far as the social media influencer, I think it's a totally different aspect of acting, of performing. So I feel that it should be omitted from the, from this because we are professionals as SAG-AFTRA members and actors. So that is my stance on this.

Yeah, for SAG-AFTRA. So I know when we had talked earlier about this bill, we thought for very minor projects that are a couple $100, setting up a trust probably wasn't worth it financially for the family. And, you know, saving 1520 bucks in a trust for 15 years might not be the best thing for a child, especially if their family has needs.

We talked about setting about a $5,000 trigger point where this bill would come in. I am a little... I'm wondering though what your thoughts would be on also setting kind of an annual calendar year limit of something like $20,000 or something like that, just in case.

So doing both. Is that what you're saying? I think more is better. So I know when we spoke, we spoke of that 5,000, but the doing both I don't think would be harmful at all. I think it gives children who are performers just another layer of opportunity or parents another layer of opportunity to protect their kids. So I don't, at the moment, and if I need to do some more research, at the moment, I don't think that doing both would be harmful.

Okay. And then Rep Iwamoto's question about carving out YouTube stars or things like that, I don't see language in here. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. Is there language specifically exempting them, or is it just that theatrical employment?

The original bill actually did include social media influencers. And if you look at my testimony today, I kept in my little chunk there that refers to social media influencers. I do know in the last iteration, in the last Committee, that part was taken out. As far as the union goes, we are doing what we can to include them because they are performers. And if I can pull up my testimony, the numbers are pretty significant for the earnings for social media performers. Oh, upside down, sorry.

Not only are they significant, as far as the numbers, while money is very important, the thing that I think of a lot is when you go to set, you have a call time. You get your call sheet and you say you're here at 9am, you do what you need to do, and especially on movie sets or TV sets, you'll see a little thing that says pumpkin.

And that pumpkin means, you know what? When it's time to go, you go home, it's cut off. Here's the time you have that you're supposed to be on set. And our protections within our CBA, specifically Section 50, really address the care of minors for their health, for their safety.

And one of the things we address is the hours that they work, but also schooling, that's a big part of it. If you're working so many days, you're going to have a teacher on set, and the hours within your work have to be some set aside for schooling.

All of those protections that you have now aren't included for social media influencers. So you could have a child who is maybe their family's breadwinner. At last report, some of these kids are making millions of dollars at a time opening boxes of toys on YouTube. Right. And that's their parents who are making that money.

So at the time, I felt it was important, and the union did support that, to include that in there. But we understand that, you know, take into account the DLIR's comments that this may not happen all today. So yes, it was there. Yes, it was carved out. And we still feel it's important for more information. I know there are a couple of states that do include some kind of social media protections, but if your workplace is your home and your parents are your boss, it might be helpful to have some protections there.

Okay. So in the previous version, so... Excuse me. So you do support including social media actors in this. Okay. And that's one of the reasons why I thought maybe an annual limit. Because per job, it's hard to say for social media, but if you have an annual limit, then I think that would apply a little more.

So that extra layer of protection I think is very smart.

Okay, can we, do you think it'd be okay to add just the trust account protection for them, the rest of the protections for schooling and things like that, that sounds like a much more sensible bill. As far as trust accounts, I mean, independently, would that make a difference?

So the schooling portion, I was referring to Section 50 of our CBA. The State of Hawaii currently has no requirement for a studio teacher or schooling on set. So those are the, that's for, you know, union projects were signatory to us, then we come in and make sure they do that. What you all do have is your guidelines for minors in theatrical employment.

Not for, but for the social media. Were you, were you advocating that a different bill sometime later, protect them more or something? Or I mean...

Well, I wouldn't want to use legislation to put... How about this? It's covered in the CBA if you're a union project. Right now, there is no provision for that. If we were just going to include social media influencers within the minors and theatrical employment statutes, it would only cover hours worked, whether or not they have to be in school. And then one of the provisions there also, if it's during school night, you have to be wrapped at a certain time. And so I guess if your mom was your boss, that means you'd have to quit opening your toys on YouTube at a certain time.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thanks for the opportunity also to talk about that. I appreciate it.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have House Bill 799, House Draft 1, relating to health care. And first up, we have Department of Health with comments.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair, Chair, Committee Members. Lauren Kim, Planning and Policy Officer for DOH, the Department of Health. We did submit comments. We're requesting some amendments that could flip our position to support. It is what is being proposed is in direct conflict with administrative rule.

I know that there have been some conversations that that rule is outdated, but it was put there for what at the time was a good reason. And the Department, you know, may be able to entertain repealing it, but we like to do so based on data.

So putting a sunset date, an exemption from that HAR, limiting it to the County of Maui and asking for a report of findings to see if it really did improve access to care and quality of care and keeping patients safe at the end of the sunset date is what we're looking for.

So I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Association of Health Plans with comments.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Rachel Wilkinson on behalf of the Hawaii Association of Health Plans. And we stand in our written testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have HMSA in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Dawn Kurisu on behalf of HMSA. First of all, we just want to thank the Committee for hearing this very important measure and we will stand on our written testimony and support but just want to highlight a few key things and why this Bill is really important for our community.

We definitely strongly support efforts to increase access and support our health care workforce, particularly on the neighbor islands, as Lauren mentioned, and in our state's most rural communities. So this Bill as drafted would currently align state practices with CMS regulations which were updated in 2019.

Again, the HER hasn't been updated since 1986. And removes barriers for physicians who wish to travel to neighbor islands to provide this critical care. So this Bill would actually help to address the health care workforce strain that Hawaii is facing.

It creates greater access for specialists to travel and be able to fill the critical care gaps on the neighbor island. It expands access to patient-centered care options and it also maintains patients patient safety. So we just want to thank you for hearing this measure. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. That's all I have registered to testify. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Next up we have House Bill 1379 House Draft 1 relating to health. And first up we have Hawaii Medical Board with comments.

Good afternoon. Chair Matayoshi and Vice Chair Chun and members of the committee. My name is Danny Takanishi. I'm the current chair of the Hawaii Medical Board and a practicing physician in the State of Hawaii. I do want to, first of all, say thank you for the opportunity to provide support, some oral comments.

You already have our written testimony on which I stand. And I do want to say that for this very important bill, the board is in full support of the intent of the bill. However, at our most recent meeting last week, which the minutes will reflect, the board did have some concerns about the current language of the bill.

And in part, again, this is before you, but it has to do with some areas that we feel are vague and may extend certain discretionary authorities to the board without the board necessarily having the expertise to ascertain, for example, that individuals trained internationally are comparable to the same standards in the United States. And the other piece has to do as well, with the board having the authority, if you will, to determine what specialties are not provided in the State of Hawaii by any physician.

And so because of some of the concerns and the fact that the National Advisory Commission on Alternative Licensing Models, which was convened by three major organizations, which include the Federation of State Medical Boards, which is the umbrella organization of all 70 medical boards across the United States and its territories, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, that accredits training programs after medical school, and Intel, which has the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates that ascertains a certain degree of, if you will, competency that we believe that it would be important for the board and other stakeholders to have enough time to study that document so that we can ensure that public safety in the process of ensuring the need to address our access needs will be appropriately addressed. And so I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next, we have Hawaii Pacific Health in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Mike Robinson, Hawaii Pacific Health. You have our testimony in support of this bill. We'll stand on a written testimony. I do appreciate this bill moving forward. We have a severe crisis in recruiting physicians here.

And I think that this is a good step in the right direction to make Hawaii competitive with other states to ensure that we can rely on maybe what might be the last core of folks that could help our shortage, which would be physicians that are trained outside of our United States.

So happy to talk with, continue our conversations or have conversations with DCCA on this. And I know many of our physicians already have, so we look forward to this to allow us to continue the conversation so that we can help address the severe shortage that we have right now with attracting physicians. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all I have who've registered to testify. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

I have a question for the department. Who was that on the screen?

Oh, that was Hawaii Pacific Health.

Oh, Hawaii. Okay, I'm sorry. Hawaii Pacific Health. Sorry about that.

Mike, you still there?

Yep, still here.

Thank you. I think your testimony indicated that you're requesting an amendment to increase it to two years instead of the one year fellowship. Is that correct?

Two years. Yeah. I think the. We have the amendments that we suggested were actually adopted in the prior committee. And so the bill as written is how captures the amendments that we put forward.

Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you so much.

Yep.

Okay.

Any other questions Members? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Next up we have House Bill 439, House Draft One relating to education. And first up we have Hawaii Teacher Standards Board with comments.

Hi, Mitzie Higa speaking for Hawaii Teacher Standards Board. On behalf of the board, this Bill is asking for an international license. And we understand the intent and we feel for the J1 teachers. But we want to stress that the reason we have requirements and requirements aren't by where they're from, it's by the license that they want to attain.

And J1 visa holders aren't automatically an emergency hire permit. They can have a license and many do. What we do require is the Praxis test. But as I have provided our testimony, there's links and I have printed copies of the actual reports of what we should be more concerned with.

And this was brought up to us at National Conference of State Legislatures and it was about the third party lenders that are lending the money to come to America to teach. So it's for their living expenses, for the time they have to wait for their first paycheck, things like that.

But what's happening is these third party lenders, which are not the state and they're not the federal, it's third party lenders in their countries, are giving them loans that are like 50 to 60% annual interest. This is a problem because then that sets them up for.

Well, we already have high cost of living here and now they have to pay this high interest loan. And the last one I saw was for 18 months. So it's very high payments for these actual loans. And you're looking at the Praxis test, maybe for the three that are required it's under 500.

But we would suggest offering more tutoring, more, more studying for the Praxis exam to take it with. The reason we have the Praxis. And we require it for even if someone has their degree from the summer in the States and they come here, they don't have their license, but they do have a teaching degree, they still need to take the Praxis. They need to take the three in their content area.

And that's how we ensure quality. Because essentially these kids, these teachers are going to go in front of our kids and we want to make sure they're ready to teach them reading, writing, math or whatever skill level that they're at. And the Praxis doesn't test. It's not a high level like GRE.

Let me talk about the GRE, but it's like high school level for the first, the core, and then for the PLT it's about grade level. And then the content test is about the content they'll be teaching. And so we just want to make sure that they understand the terminology, they pass the test.

And that's how we ensure quality of our educators in our workforce. But just so you know, NCSL did send a resolution to Congress to please check these third party lenders who are taking advantage of our J1 visa holders. And that's a bigger issue that we're worried about.

So feel free to call on me if you want the actual reports. I brought some to your offices so that you're aware, but that's our bigger concern. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Department of Education with comments.

Good afternoon Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun, Members of the Committee. Sean Bacon, Assistant Superintendent for the Department of Education. The Department stands on its written testimony. We strongly support the creation of an international license.

We have offered some amendments in our testimony and we are available to answer any questions that the Committee may have. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Next, we have Hawaii Friends of Civil Rights in support. Not present.

That's all I have registered to testify on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Rep. Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. This question I think is for the Department. So do. Regarding the praxis requirement referred to by Ms. Higa, do you support them having those three praxis as part of the international certificate?

So currently. Thank you for the question. So currently, right now what is happening is they are being hired with a permit from the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board instead of a full license.

So in order to convert that permit over to the full license right now, the Standards Board is requiring the completion of these few praxis exams in order to get the full license. What is happening right now is in the statute it talks about having reciprocity with all the other states.

I think kind of when, maybe when the statute was developed, possibly we were doing a lot of recruiting for the mainland. Something new because of our teacher shortage. We're looking for other options at this point right now.

So we've kind of went down the J1 visa program right now to really have a cultural exchange program into our schools. We're mainly recruiting from the Philippines right now and about 22% of our students relate as Filipino.

So, you know, having, you know, a Filipino teacher in front of them, we felt is very important as a part of this cultural exchange program at this point right now. What other states are doing right now, we're trying to remain competitive with the other states and we want quality also.

I don't want to say, you know, that we don't want quality. But also to stay competitive at this point right now, there are other states such as Minnesota, Nevada that are doing a reciprocity with the J1 visa program. So we're looking for something for parity there so that we can remain competitive.

Just to follow up on the, on your point of quality assurance. I think the only way you can assure quality is if they pass the these praxis. Right. Quality in terms of pedagogy and quality in terms of content area knowledge. So how else would you determine quality if you don't look at the praxis?

So I think kind of some of the amendments, what we're looking for in our testimony here is that first of all, they would need to have a valid J1 visa. Number two, they would have went through a state.

They would have went through a comparable state approved teacher education program and it would be evaluated through a third party evaluation to determine of what quality education they did in the Philippines, for example, is the equivalent to the United States. Also, we are looking to see that they would have needed to have a license in their home country again and then they would have, we would be able to get a license here similar here in the State of Hawaii.

They would only be here for this five year term at this point right now. Then part of the J1 program is they must return back to their home country after that. So that's what we're looking for at this point right now.

The principals and you know, complex area superintendents, we've had overwhelming positive, positive results with this program at this point right now. We've already went out this past fall starting to do recruitment for our next round that would be able to come in for this following school year.

Okay, thank you. Can I ask a question to ages after?

Okay, sure.

Can I follow up with DOE first?

So I've got some issues with this Bill. I took the practice exams before I became a teacher. They don't seem, they didn't strike me as that high a bar, to be totally honest with you.

My concern is that if we have teachers in the classroom that can't pass the praxis exams, should they be teaching our kids? That seems like, I mean, it seems like you're getting rid of what is a fairly low bar.

And if these teachers can't teach, can't pass even that exam, it makes me concerned that they should not be in the classroom teaching kids, especially that subject if they can't pass that subject practice. Can you comment on that please?

Again, I think, you know, the Department wants quality. We want quality in our classrooms. We want the best quality educator in front of our students. Is the praxis the only way of demonstrating that or not? That's, that's one of the questions that we have. I think, you know, what we're trying to see is equal for equal.

What can happen on the mainland though also is, is if you went through a state approved teacher education program and then got a license in another state, there is that reciprocity where not all are having to do the practice to come here.

If you're arguing equality, then why should US teachers have to take the practice exam too? Why can't they have the same requirements as international teachers to teach our kids? It's the same teacher, it's the same kids. Literally the same kids in a lot of the cases. So why are we treating international teachers differently to a.

What is, admittedly, a lower standard?

I think again, one of the things is not all of the teachers that are coming from the continent are required to take the praxis. It depends how they got their license in order for the Standards Board to determine.

And the Standards Board may be able to explain that better than me to say that some are having to take the praxis, some are not having to take it when they're doing the reciprocity with their license.

Okay. In your testimony too, you, you list five requirements that you're, you want in lieu of, or I guess to qualify for this international teacher's license.

But in talking about it just now, you said that the DOE would basically have to go and independently verify or hire some third party to independently verify each of their teaching programs that they went through. That sounds onerous.

I mean, if we're talking about, even if we're talking about just the Philippines, that's a lot of institutions, that's a lot of programs to independently verify. That just seems overly burdensome for you folks. Are you really going to be able to do that in a quality way?

I believe, and James is here, one of our teacher recruiters, I believe that that evaluation is already happening at this point from a third party NACIS evaluation program.

Hi, if I may. Hi, I'm James Urbaniak. I'm a human resource officer with the Department. Unfortunately, I think you were confused by the testimony of the Teacher Standards Board. I think the issue who's actually being disenfranchised are our J1 teachers. And let me give you an example. I was a teacher from New Jersey.

I moved here 20 years ago to teach in Ewa Beach and live in that area. When I moved here, and states like New Jersey or New York or California, they don't require necessarily the praxis test. They may have their own nationally normed examination.

Okay, so if they get a license in New Jersey or New York or California and they move from the continent to Hawaii, we do not require them. The Teacher Standards Board does not require them to take any praxis exams.

Similarly, if you are Filipino, you move from the Philippines or from Kenya and you pass and get a license in that home country, you take a nationally normed exam. And our teachers from the Philippines have taken a nationally normed exam that is basic skills, content knowledge and pedagogy, which as you know, is the praxis.

If you have that license from that country and you went through a teacher education program. Now people say, well, what kind of teacher education program? How can we verify that?

And in reality, we have independent Companies called the NACYs who provide the DOE and the teacher Standards Board with a verified document that says this teacher from this country has the equivalent of a U.S. teaching degree and those teachers pass their country's home licensing exam.

So why are the teachers from the Philippines required to take praxis exams here in Hawaii to prove their intelligence when other teachers from other states are not? And that is the core issue.

And as a consumer protection Committee, I hope that you'll consider the protection for the J1 teachers and our international teachers because education, all of our countries around the world produce teachers. They produce educators, they give them a license. We have international documents that we have in our possession that show they are equal to US teachers.

But if you move here from New York, New Jersey, California with a license in hand, you don't take the exams. But they require our international teachers to do so. They pay them less, they're disenfranchised, they have no job protections. And, and that is simply because they have no license and that's discrimination.

I'm not sure I totally agree with that assessment. I mean, it's like saying that we should honor international driver's license because they have cars there too. The rules are different. International is very broad, obviously. I mean, that's literally every other country but us.

Within the United States we have things in place that we trust other states to do. I'm not sure that necessarily applies to the Philippines, but that's beside the point. We're going to allow them to answer in a sec. I do take some affront to you lobbing a discrimination accusation here though. That's.

I think we need to, I think we need to cool it on that. Yeah. Did you have something to add? Okay.

No, I'm okay.

Yeah. Thank you so much. It is for the Teacher Standards Board. So I just want to clarify while you're coming up that I was misled by the Praxis so disclosure.

I used to serve on the Teacher Centers Board and I do know that when you allow reciprocity, there's a lot of front loaded evaluation that they are in fact similar. So I'm imagining that kind of care and scrutiny being applied to not just a country, but there are many states within a country.

So, you know, I appreciate that, the amount of work and the fact that that's what you guys do. So yeah, so I wasn't misled. But I wanted to ask you, can somebody from another country while they're in the other country take the Praxis online?

Yes, they can. And we've had instances where they have, and we even have J1 visa holders who Took the Praxis and came in and they got a license.

Okay, so. And how long does it take? I mean, so to register for the Praxis, to take it, to get the verification that you passed? How long does it take?

Lately, I mean, it depends on the season. Right. With Praxis as well as with us. But I've seen some recently that were within a month. They get the. They take it, they've. I've had some recently that they took it this month and they got their scores already.

And, you know, and could you imagine the DOE in its recruitment budget could actually pay for those if they're trying to recruit somebody?

Some of the principals have been actually paying for the praxis for our J1 visa holders if they ask.

Okay. And they could even maybe initiate,

They have to pass, but yes.

Oh, okay. You take it and then you pay, you get reimbursed.

That's my understanding, you would have to ask the principals, but yes. And just to clarify, when I graduated from UH Manoa, I had to take the three Praxis too. So it is.

And yes, when you say international, you're talking about a lot of countries, and we can't guarantee what all those countries, we only have five licensing specialists, and that's why we, to maintain quality, when they come in from international, they do have the NACIS evaluation that is already submitted for their degree so that we know it's an equivalent.

But we have the Praxis as the next step just to make sure they're ready to go in front of our kids and teach them reading and writing, math and whatever else subject area, chemistry in English that they need to do. So even if they have a UK license, we've had ones where they're departmental.

So even though elementary, they teach English only, or they teach math only, where here in Hawaii, we do have elementary, you teach all subjects. So it's very different country to country. And that's why we have the Praxis, so that we can verify the quality.

Do you have a question, Lisa? I've got one more. I've got one more for you, Mitzi, if you don't mind. You know, one of my concerns is that I think a language barrier is a concern for me. The practice exam, as far as I know, is only offered in English.

Our students, for the most part, are taught in English.

They are unless they're in Hawaiian immersion. Yes.

Yeah. With some exceptions, obviously, if a teacher in the Philippines, even though they could be a very qualified teacher to teach in the Philippines, I'm not sure that teaching in a different language that they're not accustomed to or may not be completely fluent in is fair to our students as well.

Have you seen that in any of the J1B?

We have seen that in some instances. And that's why in the core practice that everyone takes, it's at high school level, it's reading, writing, and math. And we want to make sure that they can, in fact understand and speak in the language and write and whatever they need to do in English.

However, the content area, let's say, their secondary chemistry, that I have seen people struggle with because the chemistry terms in another language are very different than the chemistry terms in English. And so that's why we also require the content area to make sure. So, yeah, it's our quality assurance model for them to take it.

And it's not as expensive. Like I said, really, the bigger worry is how much they're paying on these loans to come over here.

So other than the practice exam, I mean, I would assume that there are other tests that you folks would accept other than the praxis.

We only do the praxis here in Hawaii just because there's so many. But if they're, let's say they're licensed in another state, yes, they can come over here, but some of them actually check the box that contents and skills were not verified, and therefore they need to take the praxis as well.

Our own Executive Director came over from California. She had to take the three praxis.

Are there any tests offered in the Philippines that might be, I mean, language aside, that might be considered equivalent to the praxis?

We have been looking for studies that show equivalency, but you have to understand, if you get an international license, we'd have to do that for every single country. But no, we have not seen it. And that's part of the problem. If you say international license, that's any country, and we have seen some bad actors out there.

And we want to make sure that we are making sure when they go in front of our kids, they're ready.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none, let's move on to our last measure. We have House Bill 629, House Draft 1, relating to therapy services. First up, we have the Board of Speech and Pathology and Audiology in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Christopher Fernandez, Executive Officer for the Board of Speech Pathology and Audiology. I'm here to stand on the board's testimony, supporting and offering comments. Thank you.

Thank You. Next, we have the Board of Physical Therapy with comments.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Michelle Araki, Executive Officer for the Board of Physical Therapy. The board stands on written testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have DCCA, Professional Vocational Licensing, Occupational Therapy Program. Comments.

Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun and Members of the Committee. I'm Candace Ito. I'm the Executive Officer for the Occupational Therapist Program. And the Department stands on its written testimony with comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Department of Education in support.

Aloha, Chair Matoshi, Vice Chair Chun and Committee Members. I'm Kinau Gardner, Assistant Superintendent for the Office of Student Support Services, Department of Education. And we stand on our written test testimony in support of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Department of Human Services in support.

Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee, Judy Mohr Peterson on behalf of the Department of Human Services, we stand on our written testimony supporting the intent of the Bill. We provide comments. We, obviously we defer to the Department of Education, Commerce and Consumer affairs, and their respective boards. Thank you very much. Here for any questions. Thank you.

Alright, thank you. That's all I have registered to testify. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Rep. Marten.

A question for Judy Mohr Peterson. Hi. How does this interact with the department's efforts to have more Medicaid reimbursement for in school services?

Oh, thank you for that question. This is a part of the requirements for, that Medicaid has is that the services such as speech language therapies or occupational therapy, et cetera, they have to be referred and diagnosed and referred by a physician or other practitioner of the healing arts. That's the, that's the Medicaid requirement.

And the Department of Education has had that as it is a challenge in order to meet that.

So if this Bill were to be passed and the scope of practice for those various different therapists who are employed with the Department of Education, if they were able to, to have their scopes of practice expanded, then they would not need to get a physician's referral, diagnosis and referral, and they would be able to Bill for those services to the Medicaid program to help cover them.

So this would help them expand the kinds of services and the number of services that they'd be able to Bill for.

Any other questions, Members?

Department of Education, please. There's been testimony, quite a bit of it, kind of in opposition to this Bill, opposing the fact that it would be an expansion of the scope for these employees without any kind of subsequent compensation for it. Can you comment on that, please?

I did see a lot of opposition testimony, more specifically from speech language pathologists, and we do have our Ed specialist here, and I thought she has the most experience in that area. If I could bring her up and she could address that, please.

Good afternoon. Verna Chinen with the Department of Education. There has been quite a bit of testimony opposing this Bill, and I believe that there are two points that, as I look through the testimony, the opposition.

They're a little loud outside. You may need to speak up a little bit.

Okay.

If you could speak closer to the microphone.

Two issues come up pretty frequently within the testimony, and one is the compensation for the additional workload, given that it does take quite a bit of paperwork to sign off and show that you are approving the services and that the services were provided.

The second thing that there was quite a bit of opposition to was kind of the vagueness of the language that it talks about medical conditions. And by expanding it to say medical conditions, that becomes a little bit problematic. And I kind of heard what some of the board said.

It's within the scope of practice of speech language pathology or physical therapy that they can diagnose, but it's not a medical condition. So I think the wording probably could be a little bit clearer for others.

Yeah. And on that, a lot of the testimony. On that, a lot of the testimony also complained that the medical conditions terminology was inaccurate or kind of beyond the scope of what these people are licensed to do.

Seems like it would be a lot to change in this Bill to narrow it down to just what they're able to do. And if they. If we did narrow it down, my concern is that those services would not be covered under Medicaid, which would kind of defeat the whole purpose of this Bill. Is that accurate?

Within each of the providers, their scope of practices states that they're allowed to diagnose within their scope, so they have to stay within their scope. So, for example, a student or a child who has a communication disability definitely would be diagnosed by a speech language pathologist, because that is within their scope of practice.

Current practice is that they have to be referred, or by a physician. So that's where it becomes somewhat cumbersome. So that referral piece by a physician is the part that we're trying to say, how can we make this smoother for everyone. Because it really is up to the scope of the physical therapist, speech language pathologist.

They're the ones who are saying this because of what this person is presenting in front of us, they have difficulty functioning within their daily lives. Walking, speaking, talking, those kinds of things. And so they diagnose that, and then they can say this is the type of treatment this individual needs.

I did notice you picked the one exception to the opposition, which was the speech pathologists and communication as being the exception to maybe a more medical diagnosis. Would you agree then that all of the other medical diagnoses from all of the other licensed professionals in this Bill are probably inappropriate?

You know, without getting too much into the weeds, when we look at the scope for a physical therapist and an occupational therapist, they really talk about a functional diagnosis rather than a medical diagnosis. So that's a difference. A medical Doctor will diagnose that you have cancer or a broken leg or what have you. Okay.

The physical therapist will diagnose how that broken leg is now impacting you as you function and whether or not you need therapy. So they're going with a functional diagnosis rather than a medical diagnosis, which is where there seems to be some disconnect there, because when we.

We have it so open as to a medical diagnosis, that becomes somewhat problematic.

So, but is the. I'm assuming the medical diagnosis term was put in there specifically for Medicaid purposes. So if we change it from medical diagnosis to anything else, will you not get reimbursement for Medicaid? And isn't that kind of the point of this Bill?

That's correct. Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Any other questions, Members?

Okay, let's take a brief recess.

Okay. Reconvening number of items on the agenda. First one. We're reconvening for decision making. First item on the agenda is HB 850 relating to condominiums. Chair's recommendation is to defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Members, any comments?

Thank you. I'll be voting with reservations because of the. I would have loved if there was some kind of triggering thing that our threshold to allow for proxies, but since there isn't, I'm going to vote with reservations. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 850. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll call]. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, moving on to HB 48 HD1, relating to coffee labeling. Chair's recommendation is to make a couple of technical amendments to this bill, but that's it. It's already got a defective date. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 48, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan, Lowen and Pierick, are there any members wish to vote? No. Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1370 HD1 relating to taxation. Chair's recommendation is to pass this this bill as is, but to note in the committee report that the effective date should be January 1, 2026 per DOE tax testimony request. Members, any comments? Okay. Vice Chair for the vote. As is.

Members, voting on House Bill 1370, House draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Noting the excuse absences of Representatives Ilagan, Lowen and Pierick, actually for the rest of the agenda unless they show up. Are there any Members who wish to vote? No. Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1422 HD1 relating to motor carriers. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the proposed amendments from the Hanalei initiative. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 1422, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan, Lowen, and Pierick, are there any members wishing to vote? No. Any reservations? Seeing none? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to HB 874 HD2 relating to child performers. Chair's recommendation is to add back in social media influencer into the definition of theatrical employment which was present in prior bills. I'd like to add a term or provision to set this to kick in at either $5,000 per job or $20,000 per calendar year.

And I'd like to move this to HRS Chapter 554B per DLIR's testimony, but to put into the committee reports that they may want to check with the attorney general. Actually, I guess we already did check with AGs and they had no opinion. They might want to check with other departments or if other departments want to weigh in on what the appropriate hrs chapter might be if not 554B. Members, any comments? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 874, House Draft 2. Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan, Lowen and Pierick, are there any members who wish vote? No. Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to HB 799 HD1 relating to healthcare. Chair's recommendation is to add a provision making this applicable only to counties under 500000 in population. Members, any comments? Vice Chair. Oh, Rep Kong. He is waving goodbye. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 799, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of representation. Representatives Ilagan, Lowen and Pierick, are there any members who wish to vote? No. Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to HB 1379 HD1 relating to health. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the proposed amendments from the Hawaii Medical Board submitted by by its executive officer. Any members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Membersm voting on House Bill 1379 House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan, Lowen and Pierick, are there any members who vote? No. Any reservations? Seeing None. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to HB 439 HD1 relating to education. The Chair shares the concerns of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board and we'll be deferring this measure. Moving on to HB 629 HD1 relating to therapy services.

Again, there seems to be some conflict on what exactly these people are licensed to do and whether that would even qualify for Medicaid reimbursement, which kind of defeats the purpose of the bill. So we'll be deferring this measure as well. We have two items on the just DM sheet. HB 256 HD 1 relating to environmental protection.

Chair's recommendation is to adopt DOH's proposed amendment which would bring the state regulations into play as well. I'd like to also add language into the committee report, just noting that it was because the EPA's current rules are still in the comment period, we run into potential liability by adopting the ones currently up for consideration. Any members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 256, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan, Lowen and Pierick, are there any members who wish vote? No. Any reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Last bill on the agenda, HB 423 HD1 relating to workers compensation. Chair's recommendation is to roll back the changes to the original back to the original language in the bill for the current subsection F and conform the bill accordingly. This is the 90 day provision that some testifiers had issue with. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 423 House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan, Lowen and Pierick, are there any members who wish vote? No. Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. We are adjourned.