House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is today, Tuesday, February 25th at 2:00 p.m., and we are in Conference Room 325, the State Capitol. My name is David Tarnas. I'm chair of the committee. Vice Chair Poepoe is here and one of our members, Representative Shimizu, is here now. Others are on their way.

We're here for the purposes of considering numerous measures. For those who are testifying, I would request that you limit your testimony to two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point.

If you're testifying by Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off until you testify and then turn your video off and your microphone off once your testimony is complete. Use the Zoom chat function if you have technical issues and need to communicate with our excellent technical staff and they'll do their best to help you.

If you're disconnected, don't panic. Just come back as soon as you can and we'll try to fit you in if we're still having--receiving testimony on the bill. In the event of a network failure or power goes off in the building here and we need to reschedule, we'll make sure to post appropriate notice. Everyone knows what's happening.

If you're testifying via Zoom, please do not use any trademarked or copyrighted images. That kicks us off of YouTube, which is a problem. We really want to be visible, transparent to the public, so everyone knows what's going on here.

It helps to build trust when the public can see what we're doing and why we're doing--why we're making the decisions that we make. Please conduct yourself with aloha and refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. Okay, let's go ahead. Starting out, House Bill 302, relating to cannabis.

This measure repeals the requirement that a provider-patient relationship be established in person. First up, we have the Department of Health. Welcome. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Good afternoon. I'm Kyle Brandt for the Department of Health. We stand by our written testimony in support, and available for questions.

In my committee, I always like to ask for testifiers, rather than just standing on their testimony, highlight just a few things in your testimony about why this bill is important or not important or whatever.

We appreciate the intent of the House Draft Two of expanding access for patients to get certified. We appreciate the removal of other aspects of the bill in the previous drafts that were a little bit problematic.

Okay, so you like the House Draft Two.

Yes.

Okay. Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have testimony in support from TY Cheng, on Zoom. Not present. Next, we have testimony in support from Mihoko Ito. There she is. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Mihoko Ito, on behalf of Cure. We do stand on our testimony in support of this bill, and we like it and think it will help with patient registry access. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have testimony in support from Clifton Otto. Dr. Otto, on Zoom. Please proceed.

Yes. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Dr. Clifton Otto, in support. I just wanted to highlight that this is a very important bill for our medical cannabis patients, especially those who are unable to travel to a certification evaluation and patients on outer islands where access to certifying providers is limited.

This bill also provides the opportunity to make other changes to our Medical Cannabis Act that could help improve patient access and program participation. I've offered two suggestions in my written testimony, so thank you for considering those, and I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you, Dr. Otto. Next, we'll go back to Mr. TY Cheng on Zoom. Please proceed, Mr. Cheng.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I stand on my written testimony. We believe, as the previous testifier stated, that this is an important bill to help promote and encourage our medical cannabis industry. Patients need better access, especially when there are so many illicit forms of cannabis that can be found on Oahu nowadays. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cheng. I sure hope you're not driving. I'm sure he was a passenger, right? Wasn't he a passenger? I think he was.

This is the--I'm on the right side. I'm on the passenger side.

Okay, you're a passenger. Okay, good. You're a passenger. Good, good. I appreciate that, Mr. Cheng. Okay, next we have Mr. Blake Oshiro, in support. Please proceed, sir.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Blake Oshiro, on behalf of the Hawaii Cannabis Industry Association. We're the trade association for the dispensaries. We stand in just part of this bill, but we have requested amendments to go back to the previous version of this that was taken out in CPC.

We do believe this is necessary for increased access, and so the bill as it currently stands in House Draft Two does some of that but we do think that it could go a little bit farther, and therefore, we've requested that you relook at what was taken out previously. I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Oshiro. Next, we have written testimony in support from Big Island Grown Dispensaries. Jaclyn, you're not here or not on Zoom? Jaclyn Moore? Okay. That's all the testimony we've received on House Bill 302. Anyone else wishing to give testimony? If not, questions, members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, chair. I have a question for Department of Health, please. I'm going to bring the mic close. Is this better? Question is, after foregoing this initial in-person office visit, are there other in-person, subsequent in-person engagements that you have just to maybe adequately monitor the patient's progress and needs, if it's applicable?

I would say that varies provider to provider. Some providers do prefer in-person certification consultations. Others move on to telehealth platforms after the initial in-person certification if the condition is considered chronic in nature.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, chair.

Thank you.

Any other questions? If not, thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 712, House Draft 1, relating to health. This measure prohibits drug manufacturers from denying, restricting, or prohibiting the acquisition, shipping, or delivery of a 3-4-0 B, 340B, drug.

Two pharmacies contracted with a 340B covered entities under the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, and here to tell us what this actually means, is Department of Health, in person? Anyone here from DoH going to be presenting on this? Not you? No. Okay. We're not going to get any support from DoH today in person.

So, next, we're going to go to the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Office of Consumer Protection.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Melissa Enright. I'm with OCP. OCP appreciates the purpose of this Bill. As stated in our testimony, we do have concerns about it being placed in 481B, given that we've been working with the Attorney Generals in drafting a draft bill that we attached to our testimony, creating a standalone chapter for this provision.

It's my understanding that the AG's made some technical changes to their Draft Bill and we are in support of that draft as well. I'm available for any questions.

Cool. And just for those who didn't pick up on that, OCP means Office of Consumer Protection.

Yes. Thank you.

Got it. Okay, thank you. Next, we have the Attorney General. Thank you for being here. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee. Attorney General's Office—Omo Suchi, Department of Attorney General. We just proposed new language to clarify the Bill. I believe we sent it over to you.

Yes.

Some of it still is in line with HD 1, which prohibits discriminatory acts. The rest is just to clarify who would enforce.

And we're here for any questions or comments.

Thank you very much. We have written testimony in support from Hawaii Island Community Health Center, Melissa Bumgardner. Next, we have written testimony in support from Erik Abe, Hawaii Primary Care Association. Next, we have testimony in support from Hilton Raethel. Maybe Hilton, you can tell us what this Bill is all about.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify in strong support of this Bill. So, this Bill is designed to prevent what we believe are unfair drug manufacturers' practices that limit safety net providers access to 340B drug discounts.

This having a current impact of around $30 million a year for Hawaii hospitals and additional financial impact on our FQHC's Federally Qualified Health Centers as well. There are a total of—there are over 20 states, about 20 other states that are taking action to stop these practices across the country.

You have our testimony which outlines most of what the program is. If you gave us 20 minutes, we'd be happy to go through all the nuances, but you said there was a two-minute limit, so, we want to respect that.

It is, it is important for us to keep as much funding for our safety net providers in the state as we look at what is happening in Congress. Have you heard from other test fires? We're actively working with the Department of Health and the AG's Office on any potential amendments to strengthen this problem, strengthen this measure.

We all share the goal from these state agencies of protecting this program's use in our state, and we thank you for your time and we're available for questions.

Thank you very much. And if you haven't already read the testimony from Mr. Raethel, I would urge you to do so because he does explain what this whole program is about. Next, we have written testimony in support from the Hawaii Pharmacists Association. And testimony in support from the Queen's Health System. I think I saw JC here. There he is.

Welcome. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, JC Miki, on behalf of the Queen's Health Systems. We'll largely stand on our testimony. We're obviously in very strong support of this measure. We believe that the intent of Congress is being impinged based on how certain manufacturers are interpreting the law currently on this program.

This measure, in particular, that you're looking at today would help bring that in alignment with what the Congress wants, primarily to help those hospital systems and other health systems that help the neediest in our community, including those on neighbor islands and obviously, Queens here at Mauna Mana and elsewhere. We implore you to support this measure.

And I would just note that similar legislation was passed in Missouri, which was challenged by several of the manufacturers, was recently upheld in court. So, some good news there. Happy to answer any questions. Thanks very much.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from William Gu, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, in opposition. Please proceed, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is William Gu, appearing on behalf of PhRMA. PhRMA is a trade association for many of the large pharmaceutical companies in the United States. PhRMA stands on its written testimony in opposition to the Bill. I just have a few comments.

First of all, contrary to what the Bill may imply, the accessibility to discounted drugs under the federal 340B Program to covered entities is not an issue.

What pharma members are concerned about is due to the proliferation of the use of these contract pharmacies by covered entities, there is a lack of transparency and accountability as to exactly all the patients that are receiving benefits from this particular—from contract pharmacies.

So, for example, there's no check and balance with regard to whether these patients are actually the ones that are intended to benefit from this federal 340B Program. So, that's the concern that pharma has. Pharma is prepared to provide amendments to address its issues. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from Hawaii Pacific Health.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Mike Robinson with Hawaii Pacific Health. We stand in strong support of this bill. The intent of the federal 340 bill is to ensure that there are services provided for the most indigent and underserved community members.

We're a nonprofit healthcare system, and the savings that we get, have received from the 340B, we use to subsidize care for under-reimbursement, unreimbursed care, and Medicare. As an example at HPH, in 2022, we had about $78 million in what we consider community benefit. We actually filed this with the IRS.

Thirty-four million of that in savings we received from the 340B program. If we don't have access to that type of savings like we have been doing traditionally for the last 30 years, our safety net ability to cover those individuals and provide care goes away. Good example: Straub Burn Center.

That burn center probably is about 20 to 25% Medicaid. If you look at what happened on New Year's Eve, if you looked at what happened in the Maui Wildfire, if you look what just happened a couple days ago last week on the Maui, those are patients that go to essential services like the burn center, which is the only one in the Pacific, and we rely on these savings.

The contract pharmacy is something that all of us as providers do, and the reason for that is it allows us to provide access beyond just the pharmacies that are physically located. If you were to think that every patient had to get its pharmacy at Kapiolani Medical Center or Straub, the 340B allows us to create a network so that we can provide care where patients actually are at, and that's the benefit of the contract pharmacy and that's why we support this bill to allow that safety net provision to remain in place.

We're losing right now about a million a month at Straub based on kind of these unilateral practices that are being implemented by pharmacy companies, and why we like this particular bill is it has language that has withstood legal scrutiny both in Arkansas as well as most recently in Missouri, and the Supreme Court is also agreed with those rulings by saying that they are not going to take cert on that. So I think the language is tight, it serves a good purpose, and here in Hawaii, for a nonprofit healthcare delivery system, it's essential. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson. Next, AlohaCare, in support on Zoom. Mike Nguyen? Not present. Next, we have written testimony in opposition from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, Brian Warren, and testimony in support from Thaddeus Pham, an individual. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 712? If not, questions, members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, chair. I have a question for the gentleman from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. It's not stated in your written testimony what you shared verbally, and what I heard from you was a concern about--I don't remember you saying 'misuse,' but that's what I kind of received it as, like keeping track of the patients. Could you kind of expand what is the concern about that?

The concern is that, with the number of--the increase in the number of use of contract pharmacies, there is some concern on the part of the drug manufacturers that even if they are contracted through the covered entities, that some of the patients that are being serviced through the contract pharmacies are not actually qualified or intended to receive the benefit of the 340B discount. So that's what the concern is. It's more a matter of accountability and transparency.

Follow-up question, chair? So are you saying that the rest of the testifiers that are in support of it are somehow misunderstanding the benefit or not following a certain procedure?

No, I don't think so. And as I said in my testimony, I don't think there's any question as to the discount that's being provided under the federal 340B program to covered entities, but the question is when--or the concern is that when it gets extended to all these contract pharmacies, that somehow, you know, there's an accountability issue that the drug companies are concerned as to whether or not all the patients that are benefiting from these contract pharmacies are actually--well, they are intended beneficiaries of the discounted price through these contract pharmacies.

Last question, chair? Thank you, chair. Do you have a--because you're making this assertion--do you have some kind of numbers that reflect the magnitude of this concern?

I can ask for that information. I don't have that information right now.

Is it a big number? Is it a small number?

I'm not sure.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much, chair.

Thank you very much. Other questions, members? Mr. Raithel? Do you have suggestions on how the information from these contract pharmacies can be gathered to be able to disclose that the patients who are receiving this benefit are those that qualify?

There are very strict requirements in terms of the program. Not all hospitals who can participate do choose to participate because of the federal requirements. There is federal oversight of these programs, the programs are audited, and our hospitals and federally qualified health centers in Hawaii, we're very, very fortunate that they take this program very seriously, and again, they are subject to federal audit and all the requirements in terms of setting up the program, so we are very confident in terms of how this program is administered here in the State of Hawaii.

We can't talk about what's happening across the country, but here in Hawaii, we are very confident that this program is being used for the purpose for which it was intended.

Okay. Maybe it'd be nice for you to have a conversation with Mr. Gu to see if there's any data that they have not been able to access that would help them address some of their concerns because it sounds like everything is going well from your perspective, but from the their perspective, they're worried about not being in compliance.

Yeah, we, we are not, I'm not aware of any action that's been taken by federal agency in the State of Hawaii in regard to this program, and again, we--our members here do take this program very seriously.

No, I understand. I understand. So maybe, maybe--

But we're very, very open to having a conversation.

Yes, I would urge you to have this--if this committee decides to move this bill forward and it continues on its merry journey through the Legislature, goes to the Senate, and then continues on. So it would be good for-- f there was any way to find common ground with PhRMA, give it a try.

I encourage you.

Yeah--

Very willing to do that.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, let's move on. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 1482, HD 1, related to controlled substances.

This measure, for purposes of the Hemp Processors Law, amends the definitions of "artificially derived cannabis," and "cannabis" to include—and the definition of manufactured hemp product—to specifically exclude all forms of cannabinoids classified as Schedule 1 under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Health.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chairs. My name is Greg Edwards, Department of Health. We stand on our written testimony in support, but we'll highlight that currently, 328G—and this is in Section 2, I'm sorry, support for Section 2 of the Bill—currently, 328G already prohibits the use of synthetic and artificially-derived cannabinoids in manufactured hemp products.

However, this adds some additional clarity and adds a specific list and references a specific list from another statute, 329. So, we do stand in support of that. Available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony in support from the Honolulu Police Department, on Zoom. Ikehara not present. Next, we have testimony in support from Cure Hawaii, Mihoko Ito.

Good afternoon. Mihoko Ito, on behalf of Cure. We do stand in support of this measure also and believe that it closes a loophole and makes clear that Delta 8 and its derivatives are properly listed under the Controlled Substance Schedule. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And finally, we have testimony in support from an individual, Michael Older. Is there anyone wishing to testify on House Bill 1482? If—oh, yes, please come on up. Introduce yourself.

Chair, this—Chair, Vice Chair. This is Kaili. I'm in strong support of this measure because I use the medication for controlled substance. Please—I sent a testimony support and let me know if you have any question. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chairs, and representatives. Carla Lusa from Noa Botanicals and I stand in strong support of the Bill. I just wanted to clarify that the Bill currently includes various chemical structures related to THC, synthetic cannabinoids, and other substances with similar structures, but the Bill does not include or cover the terms that are used in cannabinoid masking today, on a lot of the illegal hemp products that we see on the shelf. So, it doesn't cover HHC, THCA, THCP, THCO.

And so, I would highly recommend that we amend the language to include these compounds and define them as derivatives or analogs of THC, to ensure that the Bill's efficacy, since that's the objective of the Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1482, House Draft 1? If not, questions. Members? Question for Department of Health. We've been hearing a lot about the widespread availability in retail stores of hemp-derived high THC products that are mislabeled.

You know, the label says low THC content, but the actual testing of it shows very high THC content. Some of them show evidence in the analysis that these are probably hemp flowers without THC that have had synthetic THC sprayed on it. We understand that it's difficult to enforce against those.

Could you briefly explain why is it difficult to enforce against these? You don't have the power to seize them? Could you talk to me about that?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. It's a good question. It's layered, it's nuanced.

That's why you're smart and you know how to explain it. If you could explain it to us now. I'm pointing to you, sir. If you could explain it to us, that'd be helpful.

I'll do my best, certainly. The first part of your question about like whether it's low or high, it's relative. So, 0.3% THC is that federal line in the sand. But 0.3% of what? 0.3% is usually—sounds like a small number, but it's all relative to something. And that what's relative is the weight of the product.

So, now, when the weight of the product starts to get larger, more dense, more heavier than certainly hemp flour, which is very airy, dried out, excuse me, material, that's where that 0.3% turned into milligrams of something like a weighty gummy, a chocolate bar—dense—a beverage, something has a lot of mass to it.

That 0.3% can equate to a THC amount in milligrams that is significant and is no longer just something that is just small. It's all relative to then what that THC could potentially do if you consume that serving or the whole, you know, the whole container of it. So, hopefully that provides some information about that 0.3%.

And then, whether that means it's low or high, you need to look at the milligrams of THC and that product can still be under 0.3% and still be legal hemp, but still have a significant amount of THC, which is why our rules recently were amended to try to bring that milligram level down into something that is non-intoxicating or less intoxicating potential.

The second part of your question was about the flower and certainly, that is a concern, but absolutely that, you know, it can be adulterated with anything, you know, whether it's just THCA being sprayed on it or spice or some other, you know, adulterants. Currently, flower—hemp flower—is not allowed to be sold directly to the public.

So, just on the form alone, regardless of how much THCA is in it, how much other things may have been sprayed on it, just on the form alone, it's prohibited under DoH.

So, what can be done? I mean I hear about this from people saying it's readily available in Waikiki and bunch of, bunch of places, you know, dozens and dozens of retail outlets in on Oahu.

I hear it too.

So, what—do you have the enforcement authority to do something about that?

Administratively, however, we share—there is shared responsibility—from a law enforcement standpoint where the flower, and again, I want to stray out of my lane here, with DoH, we have an administrative authority to either assess fines or embargo product, but the flower is also illegal under criminal code. And so, there's some jurisdictional.

Sure, you can't speak to that part of it, that's not your kuleana. But if hemp flower is being sold, you're saying that is prohibited. You said you can embargo it. Does that mean seizing it?

Yeah. No, thank you for that. It's not a seizure.

It means that it's a hold in place where the Department comes in, identifies, alleges what the violation is, catalogs, numerically identifies how much product is there, boxes it up, tapes it up, puts an embargo sticker on it, and says you can't sell it, you can't move it, you can't return it, you can't take it off the premises until we get back to you with further information.

Basically, it's a hold.

So, you box it up, tape it up, mark it, and give it back to the shop owner, and say, store this?

Well, yes, I mean in essence, yeah, but usually we find a place in a store room. It's not like on the retail shelves. It's all enclosed up and we'll take photographs and identify it all.

Has there been any successful enforcement action taken so far in, to your knowledge, by your Office, against folks who are doing this?

Yes, there was an embargo action 2021, rather large two, two operators or, sorry, one operator operating two facilities, where I would say a large number of product was ultimately embargoed. That product ultimately was turned over under order to law enforcement.

Okay. I keep hearing about the proliferation of retail shops that are selling these high THC hemp--derived products, including flower. Everyone's wondering why we aren't seeing enforcement actions against them. I'm sure you're hearing the same thing. So, you know, people are frustrated and they're looking to the Legislature to do things.

And I'm just taking the opportunity to ask you about it.

Absolutely. We do appreciate the questions. We do understand that we do have some more work to do with law enforcement to find out where those bright lines are and where their jurisdiction ends and ours begins, and vice versa.

And please talk to us, if you do need some changes in the statutory authority, whatever, please let us know.

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

Can I have a follow up question?

Yes, certainly.

Thank you. Just in those instances where you did have an enforcement, what was the law enforcement agency that you worked with?

Narcotic Enforcement Division.

Federal or state?

Yeah, state. Then, it was DPS, but now, it would be DLE.

Okay, so state DLE has experience with this and say we were to recognize and identify a number of shops that have flower or what appears to be flower, could that be reported to the Department of Health then?

That information can certainly be reported to us, absolutely.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, certainly. Any other questions? If not, thank you. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 470, House Draft 2, relating to noise. Beginning July 1st, 2028, this measure prohibits the sale of any leaf blower, string trimmer, or weed whacker that does not meet the ANSIB-175-2 Class 1 rating, etc.

And it has fines, prohibits government entities from purchasing such devices. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Health.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Carano. I'm the Administrator of the Department of Health, Environmental Health Services Division. We want to say that we absolutely support any measures that reduce noise pollution. Noise pollution is a real thing.

We have serious concerns and comments written in our testimony about how this HD 2 draft was done, and actually, just regulating, in general, lawn equipment by noise alone would be very problematic. We're also concerned that it may not absolutely have a substantial impact since you can still purchase a lot of equipment online. You know, Amazon and others.

We know this is an issue. We know that this bothers people. We think it's certainly localized into more urban areas and if there's work to be done on it, the Department's willing to do further work to figure out solutions to address this, but we do have concerns with the Draft, as in our statement.

If there's any questions, we're available. And if not, you know, stand on written comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have written testimony in support from the Department of Education—I mean with comments from the Department of Education—and in support from the Windward Coalition. Testimony in opposition from Tina Yamaki, Retail Merchants of Hawaii, on Zoom. Not present. Testimony in support from three individuals. Testimony and comments from Greg Misakian, on Zoom.

Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Yeah, I kind of echo the comments that were just made by the previous testifier, and I also had asked previously regarding these types of bills. I know I testified—I'm not sure if it was on this one or another one, I think there's two floating around, but I believe it was on this one—to address other noise issues.

We've got a lot of health-related noise issues, especially in Waikiki, and as I do serve on the Kikua Council, which is a kupuna-related organization, we know, you know, we discuss health-related issues, and we know that it's a pervasive issue. I also serve on the Waikiki Neighborhood Board where noise issues have been discussed quite often, not just the early trash pickup, which is something I'm concerned about, with the muffler and exhaust noises.

What really needs to be done by—or through our Legislature—is that we just need to enact a very simple ordinance regarding all of the excessive noises and just list them. Just have one comprehensive ordinance and legislation that's passed. And ultimately, I think that's the solution. And then, we know we need to have HPD do their enforcement.

But we realize that that's been an issue in the past also because without enforcement, we don't have laws. I mean, you could just have documented notes that nobody follows.

So, with those comments, I hope you hear what I'm saying, because I've said it before, and I do ask if you could maybe, when you move this over or it gets further discussion, it be amended further or made something more substantial. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, Ted Bohlen.

Aloha. Thank you, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. Ted Bohlen in strong support of this measure. I think I agree with the last couple speakers who have acknowledged that noise is a problem. It's not just an irritation. It also can be a health problem for people.

I would take some issue with the last speaker that we need to work on things one at a time. Loud leaf blowers, string trimmers, and weed whackers—it's the subject of this Bill. I'd love to see this Bill move forward and take some action on that. The question is how you do it.

Not all noise is the same, so trying to tackle all at once—I think could be problematic. I have submitted an amendment for—in my testimony—that I'd like the Committee to consider and that's related to what kind of standard you use.

The Bill before had a 65 weighted decibel standard and then, it changed to something under the American natural—national, whatever it is—NC Standard. There's a problem with that Standard, which is that it changes. It doesn't cover weed whackers. So, you've got apples and oranges situation there.

So, I would urge the Committee to take to take an amendment to go back and I put that in my testimony. I'm available for questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bohlen. Next, we have testimony in support from Chris Abe. Chris Abe? Not present. Testimony on zoom from Kaili Swan. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Kaili Swan. I'm in strong support of this measure because I do a lot of yard work at home. This Bill is usually important to noise because I got a complete complaint letter from my Home Association in the community.

So, please pass this Bill. Then please submit any question you may have. Thank you so much listening to my testimony.

Thank you very much. And finally, testimony received from Christopher McDougall, on Zoom. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 470, House Draft 2? Seeing none. Questions, Members? No noise. Okay, we'll move on. Thank you very much to all the testifiers. HB 320, HD 1, our next measure, relating to supported decision-making agreements.

This measure allows qualified adults, including adults with a disability, mentally ill adults, and adults 65 years of age or older, to enter into supported decision making agreements with one or more Members of a supportive community. Measure specifies the terms of a supported decision making agreement, including access to personal information, agreement requirements and circumstances for termination.

First up, we have testimony from the Department of Health Executive Office on Aging on Zoom. Nope. Caroline Kadirao in support. Next, we have testimony and support from the Hawaii Department of Health Behavioral Health Administration with comments. Next, we have testimony with comments from the Attorney General on Zoom. Oh, in person. Yay. Thanks for being here.

Apologies.

Oh, no apologies needed. It's always better to have you in person.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Amy Morton-Sogi with the Department of Health Developmental Disabilities Division.

Okay.

So we stand on our written testimony providing comments, which I'll briefly summarize. So the Department appreciates the intent of this measure to provide a less restrictive alternative to guardianship. And we defer to the Department of the Attorney General to determine the most appropriate vehicle for implementing supported decision making. And I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, so the Attorney General, please.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Margaret Leong, Deputy Attorney General. Our office has submitted testimony offering comments and recommendations, specifically the recommendation regarding conforming the language in Section 2 and Section 4. And I'm available for any questions, should you have any. Thank you.

Thanks for your testimony. We have testimony with comments from the Department of Human Services, testimony and support from the Disability and Communication Access Board. Kirby Shaw on Zoom. Not present. Next, we have testimony from the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, Julia Altoff on Zoom. Julia Altoff on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. I believe that my colleague Chase Louver is there and he was going to testify first, and then I was going to Follow him.

Oh, I messed things up. Okay, you hold on, and I'll call Shay to come up now, and then you can go next. We'll do it that way. Come on. Up next, we have the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Aloha, Chair, Committee Members. My name is Chase Louver with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. I'm here for the testimony offering comments. Obviously, our office offered two. I'm specifically testifying in the capacity of the working group that we've been doing since 2023. We're gonna stand in our written. Sorry.

We're gonna stand in our written testimony offering comments. I'm not used to doing comments. And just as a personal point of pride in my work, I apologize that our testimony was late, and I do apologize that it had draft on it. So I have a clean version for you folks.

Just to really summarize, our testimony really quickly is essentially, we've been having this working group for almost over two years or a year and a half now, and we've been trying to identify different issues when it comes to guardianship and conservatorship.

And one of the big issues our group has spoken about was that there is a big delay in how quickly we can have cases be heard.

And so we're hoping that through support decision making, which is a best practice across the nation, we might naturally kind of reduce the amount of people that need to go to guardianship and maybe get those cases heard a little bit quicker. And it's cheap. I know you guys. I know that always is a big deal.

So thank you guys so much. And as you know, Julia is on Zoom.

Thank you, Shay, and thanks for facilitating that conversation in the working group. They've been very, very professional and helping them produce useful outcomes. Okay, back to Julie Altoff, State Council on Developmental Disabilities on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and the esteemed Committee Members. Julia Altoff, for Developmental Disabilities, Hawaii State Council. This bill is about the basic human rights and dignity right. It ensures that people with disabilities can make their own decisions with trusted support without losing their legal rights.

I'm especially pleased to be able to testify in this Committee because I'm also an attorney, and I believe that the duty that we have of the legal profession to uphold justice, protect human rights, and preserve human dignity is sacrosanct. Disability alone doesn't equate to incapacity.

And granting guardianship based solely on a diagnosis is a profound violation of human dignity and inequality. But it happens all the time. So we all need help with decisions. We talk to lawyers Doctors, family, friends.

So imagine that you lose the right to decide where you live, who you spend your time with, or how you spend your own money just because you have a diagnosis. That's the harsh reality for people with disabilities. And it's also a catch 22.

You need the diagnosis to get the support, but it's that very diagnosis that often results in losing your autonomy.

So codifying supported decision making will not only safeguard the rights of people with disabilities, but it will also protect service providers from liability and enable them to comply with HIPAA confidentiality and financial laws, powers of attorney and releases of information help, but they don't always provide the right balance of the support and Independence where SDM does.

So this bill offers a compassionate and just solution. The State Council supports HB 320 HD1 because it aligns with national best practices for least restrictive alternatives continues Hawaii's legacy of equality and justice. So this isn't just about changing laws, it's about changing lives.

Passing this bill will ensure that people with disabilities are seen, heard and respected as the whole complete human beings that they are. Thank you. And I remain available for questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Altoff. Next, we have testimony in support from County Council, Maui County, Addison Bulosan. Next, we have testimony and support from Lou Ortech.

Good afternoon. Chair Thornis, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Lou Ortech. I'm the Director of the Hawaii Disability Rights Center. This is a really great idea and I know I originally signed up on Zoom, but I wanted to be here in person to highlight just how important this bill is.

I think of all the bills I'm working on this session, this is probably our highest priority. I've been looking at this issue for the better part of the last eight to 10 years. There's an agency like us in every state, and so I'm often in touch with my colleagues.

And when I first heard about this, honestly, I didn't know what to make of it. It was a new concept. But I looked at it more closely and a lot of states are moving in this trend of adopting supported decision making. Many states have actually enacted it into law.

And we represent a lot of people with disabilities, obviously, and they run the whole range. I mean, there is a place for guardianship somewhere in the law. I definitely would not say that nobody should have a guardian.

I mean, some people are very low functioning and really do need a guardian, but there's a lot of people that we see that really don't need to have guardians. And it is a major Infringement on your liberty.

I mean, many years ago, before I was a Director, I was a Staff Attorney, I brought a case over in Kona to remove a guardian because the guardian wouldn't consent to the marriage of the Ward and the Ward only had mild deficits. And so we had the guardian removed and replaced and so forth.

So it really is a major infringement. Not only that, I've been participating in the work group as well and we're seeing it. The courts are clogged with cases. We're hearing that bill about the pilot project today. I mean, they don't have enough resources.

So not only would this benefit these people, it would help unclog the courts and it would remove cases that don't really need to be there.

So I would just say since we're kind of fessing up about our age here, I mean, maybe for those of you who are old enough to remember the song that says I get by with a little help from my friends. That's basically what this is.

You enter into an agreement and that instead of having a guardian imposed upon you. We do a lot of these individual support plans with the DD division and they call it a circle of support. And this is basically the same concept.

You just gather these people around you who are going to give you the information you need, be supportive of you, but you retain the autonomy to make the decisions for yourself. So it may not be for everybody, but it definitely is for a lot of people and it can help people.

So we really hope that the bill will advance and if we can actually pass it. I know when we first talked about introducing this, we've been doing this for a long time. We thought, well maybe a year or two years eventually it'll catch on.

This would be a great year to pass it because it really would accomplish a lot and it doesn't cost hardly anything either. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Herzczyk. Next we have testimony and support from the Hawai' I Self Advocacy Advisory Council. Testimony and support from Easter Seals Hawaii Special Education Advisory Council in support, Full life in support. And then testimony and support from six individuals and then testimony from Kaili Swan on Zoom.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kylie. Good afternoon. Sorry. Kaili Swan. I'm a strong supporters measure because support decision making is the most top priority in this bill for short. But sweet. I left my mom and if I.

If you pass this bill and if I make my own decision, ask you have approval by my mom by law. So please pass this measure. Please Submit every question. We have dictates my testimony.

Thank you very much, Mr. Swan. And finally, we have testimony support from Faith-Lahua Alejandro on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Tarnas Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Faith-Lahua Alejandro and I am a current social work student at UH Manoa. I strongly support this bill 3 House Bill 320.

Working in the DOE Special Education Department at a high school for almost four years, I can foresee the benefits of this bill as it supports the empowerment of individuals with disabilities and mental illness and allows for a qualified adult to make a voluntary, informed and educated decision relating to decisions and agreements that involve or affect them.

As a community, we should not only consider what services or options are made for the public, but also the barriers to accessibility, attainability and understandability of those services, especially for qualified adults, as indicated within House Bill 320.

By having a supportive community Member chosen by the qualified adult present, it helps mitigate this barrier whilst keeping the qualified adult the decision maker. So this moves away from guardianship, which I fully support. That can sometimes hinder the goal as a community to.

To promote autonomy where applicable and appropriate, which I understand, and individual choice, which are often lacking within these communities. So thank you once again.

Thank you very much and thanks for pursuing this field of study. I think that that's great. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 320, House draft one, if not, questions from Zoom? Sure. Mr. Misakian, you want to talk about this bill too, just briefly.

I meant to submit testimony on it and I was not able to get it in with the numerous. Please proceed. Working on. Thank you so much. First, again, I'm Greg Misakian and I'm submitting testimony today as an individual, but I mentioned earlier, I do serve on the Kakua Council.

I serve as first Vice President of Kakua Council and we've been around since 1972 as advocates for our kupuna and lesser advantaged. And I'm very glad I'm listening to this testimony today. I fully support Louis Erdosick's comments and I fully support that.

If he's evaluated this bill in detail, which I wasn't able to go in, in the level that he's gone into, that I trust his observations and assertions that this Bill is sound and I fully support it and hope that you do pass it through. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 320, House Draft 1, if not questions, Members? Representative Belatti.

I have a question for maybe the Attorney General, the amendment that you're proposing that says that a supported decision making agreement would be terminated if the Member who entered into the decision making agreement provides paid support services. What is the rationale behind that?

And is there an instance where you might have a caseworker who's part of the supportive community and that this actually runs counter.

Well, it was. Excuse me, it was in the original draft. And so what we did is since it was in the original Section 2 as a prohibition for one entering into an agreement, we thought, okay, for the automatic termination, they should mirror each other.

So it was more from a conforming situation as versus taking a stand that that should be part of it.

So I appreciate that it's a conforming amendment, but what about the reality of the situation of an individual for whom this agreement is being made and a team approach. Right, understood, understood. Very possible that we're conforming something and then creating something that's not going to work.

But under this particular bill, as it's drafted right now under Section two, it was there. It was. So, so, so what I'm saying is.

Okay, so let's go past a little bit like, let's dig a little deeper and understand. You cannot explain the context.

No. Just as that was proposed and that, you know, that's more of a, if you will, policy. If you think that that's not an appropriate. That's kind of a policy. And given that it came from the work group as well as versus a legal deficiency per se. Okay, yeah, sure.

If I could direct that question maybe to Mr. Louver might understand it better.

Okay, come on up.

So understanding that these individuals are often supported by a team of caretakers, some who may be paid or unpaid, does that amendment actually then run counter to what this Bill might be trying to accomplish?

Yeah, so I'll try to answer because I'm, I'm kind of answering as the facilitator of the working group and as an advocate. Right. That works with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The conversation with the working group is that, you know, we took a, we took a support decision making agreement and measure out of.

I believe we did it from the Colorado law. So. And I'd have to double check. I'd not 100. If it was, if that language was in the original version of the Bill, you're not wrong that it could run counter. It could be counterintuitive to what the intent was.

There has been discussions that there are people that do get paid that help these individuals and they should still be able to be their support decision maker. But we also understand the conversation that that kind of just leaves a, like a window for abuse open. It kind of an obvious one.

However, I know Julia, my co worker, has direct experience where, for example, the brother gets paid to help caretake for his own sibling. So then he would not now be able to be the support decision maker simply because he gets paid like $10 to do XYZ. So we kind of see both sides.

There are other safeguards in the bill, though, that says the individual for whom this agreement is being made can at any time find and gather information separate and apart from the person who they've signed the agreement with. Right. So there are safeguards against this?

Okay.

Yes, there are.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, representative. Thank you, Mr. Silver. Any other questions, Members? If not, thanks very much to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 239, House draft one related to child abuse.

This measure amends the definition of child abuse or neglect by clarifying that the failure to provide certain needs to a child shall not constitute child abuse or neglect if the sole reason the person responsible for the care of the child is unable to adequately provide for the child's care is due to a lack of financial resources.

First up, we have the Office of Wellness and Resilience, Office of the Governor in support. Next, we have testimony from the Department of Human Services with comments on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Kerry Moea'I, Director's Office, Department of Human Services. On behalf of Director Ryan Yamani, the Department of Human Services appreciates the intent of the measure and provides comments. We stand on our written testimony. Thank you. Could you please highlight what you're suggesting in your testimony? We have several recommendations.

In our testimony, we emphasize that the shifting focus to the caregiver's financial situation rather than the child's condition may leave vulnerable children without necessary support. And so our recommendations follow that statement. Okay, thank you. Yep.

Next, we have written testimony and support from the Hawaii Coalition for Child Protective Reform, from the Hawaii Youth Services Network, Early Childhood Action Strategy Collaborative Support Services, Inc. Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And we have testimony on Zoom from Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks Noreen Cole. Not present. Oh, in person. Better. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I am Chevelle Davis. I am here for Noreen as she got pulled into something else. And we are with Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks. And we stand on our written testimony in strong support of this bill and Just wanted to share that.

The Malama Ohana Working Group's report asks for a continuum of care, especially support for families faced with homelessness, food insecurity and poverty. As we all know, it's very difficult for many of our families with young Keiki to survive in the state. And we don't want to criminalize poverty.

We understand that in practice poverty is not the sole basis for removal removal for Child Welfare Services. And we believe that making, making that abundantly clear in our statute is still necessary. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you. Next we have written testimony and support from Catholic Charities Hawaii from Hooika I, partnership from Domestic Violence Action center, all in support and testimony from three individuals in opposition. Next, testimony and support from Thomas McNorton on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. I am a Master's of Social Work student at the University of Hawaii Manoa and a social work intern at Liliuokalani Trust. The views I will express are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of the University or Lili Oka Lung Trust.

I believe this change is necessary and a compassionate step towards ensuring that our child welfare system treats families with fairness and understanding rather than penalizing them for circumstances beyond their control. Poverty does not reflect a parent's love or commitment to their child. Many families across the state struggle to make ends meet.

Working long hours, low paying jobs, you know, face of rising cost of living. But despite their efforts, some parents simply cannot provide everything for their child their children needs due to financial limitations. Punishing families for being poor only deepens their struggles and creates unnecessary pain for both parents and children.

This change is a matter of equity and justice. Families living in poverty, especially those from marginalized communities, are disproportionately affected by current definition of neglect. This amendment helps to address systematic inequalities in our children in our child welfare system, ensuring that all families are treated with dignity and fairness regardless of their economic circumstances.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next we have testimony, support from Lori Ariel Toshiki.

Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Vice Chair. I'm Laurie Tochiki. I'm speaking as an individual citizen, but also in my role as co chair of the Malama Ohana Working group and speak about how this bill reflects some of the work of the working group.

Our report has 157 pages of recommendations about how the child welfare system needs to reform in three levels. One at the policy level, which is what this is. Right? It's a word, it's in the statute, it's a function. Other recommendations are about how we work together and our relationships in the system.

And that system is all of us. And then some of it's about our values and our mindset. And I really want to appreciate especially those representatives who participated in our community meetings and listened to the stories of the people in our community who have been touched by the child welfare system.

And for those stories, this is not just a word. This is really an important shift from an attitude of help, excuse me, from an attitude of what feels like punishment to an attitude of help and support. And that really is maybe the bottom line crux of what we're asking for in this bill.

It grieves me that we talk about the needs in the community and say that the only way for families to receive those services is through the child welfare office in the system. Because that really is and should be where the most serious cases are handled with skill, with expertise and with resources to handle those very serious cases.

And for families who are poor, who are struggling, let's offer help. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your work too. Next, we have testimony in opposition from Cindy Adjemine, testimony in support from Karen Worthington and Abigail Poorman and. And testimony in opposition from Laura Burbage and Chris Coagdan. Anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 239, House Draft 1? If not questions Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair, I have a question for Department of Human Services. Is anyone here? Yeah, I think. Thanks. You have to speak up. I. I seen your testimony that when CWS does not confirm child or neglect, I guess it's child abuse or neglect. No services are offered to a family. So I.

I agree that the apparent intent of this bill sounds really good. But by passing this bill, some families may not qualify for services because now they're not. I hate to use the word labeled. Qualified as. Abuse or neglect. Is that correct that it can hurt them by this bill passing?

I believe so. I believe so. I. I am fairly new. I'm standing in for the Social Services Division Administrator. So I, I, I would have to confer with her to get a more. Formulated and appropriate response. He doesn't know. I don't know. Okay. Yeah, sorry.

Thanks. Thanks for your honesty. I don't know too. That's why I'm asking.

I will get you a response in a timely manner.

It just sounds like it's an unintended consequence that might adversely affect families in a harmful way, even when we're trying to do good. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate you. Sure. Thank you.

Thanks very much. From the Department of Human Services. Any other questions, Members? Yes, Represent Perruso.

I have a question for Ms. Tochiki, please. As the co Director or convener of the Malama Ohana Working Group. So my question, I think it's a similar question just framed slightly differently. How will this help families that might be struggling with poverty but who are not, you know, intentionally engaging in neglect or abuse of their children?

So, you know, just a couple thoughts. One is that really there needs to be a whole Continuum of services. And so if you go into the Doctor with a cold, you don't want an amputation. Right. And so that Continuum, part of our Continuum is what's called Family First Prevention Services.

And in the community, there is a community of people and providers who are really looking at the protective factors in the prevention arena. And in our report we talk about how we need better collaboration and coordination in that protection arena.

We need to expand the family first middle ground that's at the doorstep of child welfare, but not necessarily through the threshold. And unfortunately, this is just one piece. And we get that this is one piece of a pretty comprehensive statement of what we need.

What we've heard from Child Welfare Services over and over again is that they do not confirm abuse or neglect solely on the basis of poverty.

What we heard was that this should not change actual practice because often families with poverty also present with many other complicated situations that come with that, including domestic violence, incarceration and mental health issues.

And so when those present, then that is where we need the services of the more intensive, the more skillful, and sometimes we need to remove children. We really do.

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

Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on. House Bill 918, House draft one relating to labeling. This measure establishes labeling requirements for certain pre moistened non woven disposable wipes and establishes civil penalties. First up, we have Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Burke. I'm with the Hawaii State Department of Health, Food and Drug Branch. We submitted written testimony offering comments. To briefly summarize, first off, the initial draft of this bill was originally assigned to 342, not mistaken. Now it's been moved into 321.

Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 321 already has a penalty section and remedies. So we are asking to take out the existing remedies in this draft because we already have the tools to be able to enforce administrative actions on violators. Again, going back to the original draft, the definition of Department in that first draft was the Department of Agriculture.

And in Section F of the current draft, that never changed. And so the Department of Agriculture, from our understanding, is responsible with the EPA, obviously, in approving labels, FIFA labels. And so that's not something that the Department of Health does.

So within Section F, we are asking if this stays, that the Department be removed, because as of now, it reads as if it were Department of Health, that would be doing the approval. And then finally for implementation, we are requesting funding and the establishment of positions just so that we can be able to enforce.

But this is a big issue and it impacts a lot of different programs, but primarily at the county level. Right? I mean, I think we see with the testimony that there are county programs that are looking at this to help with wastewater clocks.

And so with that, we think that it would be good to have, you know, coordinator or education outreach coordinator to help both on, you know, reaching out to the regulated community and also with the public and with the counties to come to a solution. That's comments to our written testimony. Stand on it, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Burke. We've received written testimony support from Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management, from Hawaii Realtors, Lindsey Garcia. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Members, my name is Lindsey Garcia from Hawaii Realtors, and we are in support of this measure. And just highlighting, of course, that light wipes can lead to clogs and significant damabe to plumbing and sewer infrastructure. And as such, we are in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony in opposition from retail merchants of Hawaii, Tina Yamaki, not present on Zoom. We have testimony with comments from the Household and Commercial Products Association and testimony support from Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Mr. Bolen, anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 918, House Draft 1? Seeing none. Questions Members?

Okay, wipe that off our list and go on to the next one, House Bill 1277. Sorry, I'm trying to bring some levity into this whole thing here. House Bill 1277, House Draft 1, relating to digital financial asset. This measure imposes a daily maximum of $1,000 on transactions through a digital financial asset transaction kiosk. First up, we have the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Office of Consumer Protection, otherwise known as OCP.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Emma Olsen for OCP, Office of Consumer Protection. We stand on our written testimony offering comments and would just like to highlight a few points. Our office supports the intent of the bill, which would seemingly protect consumers from losing money in these cryptocurrency ATM scams, but we are concerned about enforcement. The bill appears to be modeled after California's digital financial asset law, which in part imposes the same $1,000 per day transaction limit on cryptocurrency kiosks.

However, Hawaii, unlike California... Or however, unlike Hawaii, California has a comprehensive licensure system for crypto businesses and significant resources dedicated to enforcement. And currently, Hawaii does not have requirements for licensure for cryptocurrency nor any resources dedicated to its enforcement. So just a question about enforcement for this Committee. Thank you.

Understood. Thank you, Ms. Olsen. Next, Keali'i Lopez, AARP Hawaii.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Committee Members. I'm Keali'i Lopez, State Director for AARP Hawaii, and appreciate the opportunity to testify in strong support of this bill. On behalf of our nearly 135 members statewide, we want to thank you for holding this hearing.

AARP believes that this bill is a good step in consumer protection, particularly for older adults, from scams associated with large cryptocurrency transactions. Hawaii has 88 of these cryptocurrency kiosks across the state. If you aren't aware, kupuna in particular, just generally as relates to fraud, are a high percentage of those who are victims of scam. Doesn't mean younger people don't get scammed. It just happens to mean that older adults, kupuna 60 and older, have some resources and lose more funds in these transactions than do younger people.

And unlike younger people, they're on a fixed income and do not have the ability to go back out and start re-earning all of those funds that they've lost. So the loss is permanent and devastating. So in Hawaii in 2023, according to the FTC, the loss for Hawaii in Hawaii for cryptocurrency crimes as a whole was 27,793,000. Now that's all types of cryptocurrency, not specific to just cryptocurrency kiosks.

However, what's important to note is, again, another FTC report indicated that individuals who were 60 and older were more than three times as likely as younger adults to to report scams specifically from cryptocurrency kiosks, and that for every $3 lost through these crimes, $2 were from those who are 60 and older. This is a real problem.

I understand that perhaps there haven't been complaints, I don't know. But the truth of the matter is, if we know for cryptocurrency types of scams in general In Hawaii, 27 plus million have been lost. Sure. This is a real problem. And so anyway, it's skyrocketing. It's been increasing tenfold.

And like I said, cryptocurrency transactions are often irreversible, making them a prime target for frauds and scams. I believe this is a good bill headed in the right direction. It might need work, but please give us an opportunity to continue working on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for your advocacy. Next we have testimony from Stefanie Sakamoto, Hawaii Credit Union League, in support. Not on Zoom? Okay. Next we have testimony in opposition from Kevin Lolli with CoinFlip on Zoom. Please proceed.

Chair, Vice Chair, and honorable Members of the Committee. My name is Kevin Lolli and I'm the Assistant General Counsel and Consumer Protection Officer for CoinFlip. CoinFlip opposes HB 1277 relating to the proposed regulation of virtual currency kiosks in its current form.

However, CoinFlip does support regulatory measures that would further consumer protection, and we look forward to continuing to work with the State of Hawaii to protect consumers. CoinFlip is a global digital currency platform focused on providing consumers a simple and secure way to buy and sell virtual currency.

CoinFlip has operated in the State of Hawaii since 2020 and is a money service business registered with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. As an MSB, CoinFlip is subject to the Bank Secrecy Act, the United States Patriot Act, and they're implementing rules and regulations. CoinFlip embraces licensing regimes as an effective means to create baseline requirements for operations as well as effective oversight. Unfortunately, HB 1277 relies on policy recommendations that create a false sense of consumer protection.

The proposed transaction limits in the bill do not adequately consider federal reporting requirements, including the filing of a suspicious activity report at $2,000, compliance with the travel rule at $3,000, and the filing of a currency transaction report for transactions above $10,000. This information is placed in a repository for law enforcement to quickly and accurately conduct investigations.

We know that new users are the most vulnerable to fraud, and while those who have used our machines for years know what to watch out for, should there be transaction limits, we would suggest that they apply to new users within the first 72 hours of becoming a customer.

CoinFlip believes smart regulation is good for business, including the following: require licensure within the state, require robust compliance programs, require clear, highly visible warnings and fee disclosures, require the use of blockchain analytics, and require live customer service. CoinFlip shares your goals of consumer protections and we look forward to working with Hawaii House to improve HB 1277. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next we have Joshua Wisch with Holomua Collaborative.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, thanks so much. Holomua Collaborative is testifying in support of this bill. Just to share why, our mission is to advocate for public policies that help keep all local working families in the state by making sure they can afford to stay. So we do see this actually as a cost of living issue.

The Committee has heard me talk before about how our related organization, Holomua Collective, recently did a cost of living survey and one of the questions we asked was do you think you're going to need to move to a less expensive state. Specifically with some older Hawaii residents.

Residents ages 65 to 74, 38.5% even in that age bracket said that they're unsure if they're going to need to move. Residents 75 or older, 37% said they were unsure if they were going to need to move. And so I mentioned that just because it's not like that problem goes away just when folks get older.

And we also asked, do you spend more than 30% of your income on housing. In that 64 to 74 age bracket, almost half of them still said yes. And I mention that because our survey also surveyed locally employed people. So these are folks who aren't even on a fixed income and the situation is still that dire, which is why they could really get hit by this.

Last thing I'll mention is we did a little bit of research as well and found the Internet Complaint Center, which I believe is actually part of the FBI. They do a state report on cryptocurrency fraud, and according to their 2023 report, that year alone Hawaii recorded 276 complaints related to cryptocurrency fraud, resulting in total losses of over $31 million.

And kupuna aged 60 and above were disproportionately affected, losing an average of $205,000 per person. And so just to tie that up, if you're in that 65 to 74 age bracket, you're paying more than 30% of your income on housing, you think there's a decent chance you're going to need to leave the state, and you lose $205,000, that becomes a massive, acute cost of living issue.

And I'll just note, I know personally kupuna, including in Hawaii, who have been scammed using these machines here in Hawaii. And they basically use them to get folks to panic and keep pulling more and more money out. And so having just a $1,000 limit seems like a good way to address that. Thanks so much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Wisch. Testimony in support also from the Hawaii Family Caregiver Coalition, from Hawaii Bankers Association, and from several individuals. And we also have one testifier, Thomas Michener, in person. Please proceed.

Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thomas Michener testifying as an individual. In 2023, citizens of Hawaii reported losses totaling over $31 million in cryptocurrency involved incidents. And that's $31 million not in the pockets of people that need it. I therefore support HB 1277, House Draft 1. The bill would limit how much victims would be able to put into a cryptocurrency kiosk, send, and then never see again.

Although cryptocurrency kiosks are not the only way to purchase cryptocurrency, kiosks are ones with the least controls and protections, at least in Hawaii, which is why the modest provisions of this bill would have such a large benefit. If victims of a scam can only lose $1,000 a day, that makes Hawaii victims less tempting of a target and would push scammers to direct their victims to methods of purchasing cryptocurrency that have more protections. I'd like to address some points raised by the industry testifier, CoinFlip.

First, CoinFlip says that the bill does not adequately consider federal reporting requirements and then talks about the reports that they file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, that is the currency transaction reports and suspicious activity reports. These reports, they say, are placed in a repository for law enforcement to quickly and accurately conduct investigations. And it's true that these reports do go into a repository.

But even if law enforcement looks at that database, which they need to actively do, and even if the reports contain all the information about a transaction, that does not change the fact that transactions in cryptocurrency are very hard to trace and even harder to reverse. At best, in cryptocurrency cases, reports to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network allow law enforcement to identify criminal trends but does little to get money back for victims or put cuffs on perpetrators. Second, CoinFlip describes its predicted outcome of the bill.

That is $1,000 transaction limits encourage stacking transactions across multiple kiosk operators. Focusing on what this would mean for victims of cryptocurrency scams. The number of kiosk operators is much smaller than the number of thousands of dollars that victims have.

So even if a victim went to several operators' kiosk, they would still be better off with the $1000 limit laid out by this bill. And moreover... Yes, thank you. These are modest provisions, but it would do a lot to protect Hawaii victims, and I fully support it and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all the testimony that we have received from individuals who wish to provide oral testimony. We received other written testimony, which everybody has. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 1277, House draft one if not questions, Members? Representative Todd.

Is anyone here from DCC?

Aloha, Chair. Greg Misakian from Zoom. And I see there's someone with their hand up also.

Mr. Misakian, you go ahead.

Thank you. I just want to say briefly, I fully support this bill and I appreciate those that have come today to support in person, especially the State Director of AARP, Keali‘i Lopez. It's a pleasure to see that people are researching and doing their due diligence to report to the Committee so that they understand some of the concerns. And again, I mentioned my background earlier. I'm speaking as an individual, but with Kokua Council. We are concerned with the advocacy.

But you're speaking as an individual right now, so. We'll leave it at that.

Thank you. So with that said, I fully support what's been stated and I do hope you move this bill forward and it gets passed. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. I've been informed that Mr. Shelby Billioanire is on Zoom wanting to testify. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair. Pikachu Shelby Billioanire representing the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands. Want to thank you for putting the bill together. I do appreciate everyone's comments saying the consumer protection. I agree with that. But a lot of them are not certified in cryptography. I was trained in the Air Force 25 years ago. Binary is cryptography. 000000 is zeros.

Right? You want to make the letter A when you type on your computer, that's 000001. You want to write the letter B. That's seven zeros, 1-0. And that's how you write an email. A, B, C, D. It's in zeros and ones. So when you're making $1000 transaction to stop the kiosk. I understand the intention of the bill, but if you're going to move cryptography or crypto money, you would wire the money to yourself from the crypto wallet, which you have on your cell phone.

You can buy, sell anytime you want here. If you want to pull it out, you would wire that money to yourself on your own bank account. Therefore, you could avoid the scams that these people are going through. I'm not sure cryptography works, how the wallets work on digital. This is a regular wallet.

You could buy an exchange and then you take it off on a code wallet. So no one can take your Bitcoin or your cryptography. So I'm not sure what's going on. Maybe it's the older generation versus the younger generation. But I'd highly encourage you to protect your assets.

And if you do have a cryptocurrency, you can make your own token, you can make your own wallet, and you could get off a fiat currency, get off the US dollar and make your own Hawaiian Kingdom coin, your own State of Hawaii coin, your own China coin. China would copy and it would copy you.

So it does get very scammy out there. I do encourage if any of you guys do invest, that you do your due diligence first. Don't just buy some random tokens trying to go up on the value. And that's all the comments I have to say about this bill because I know you guys will make the proper decision. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 1277, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members?

Okay, do we have anyone here for DCCA? Yeah, thanks. So kind of extrapolating from the AARP's testimony. We would kind of project maybe close to $1.0 million in fraud direct from these current ATMs within our state? Of the, of the 20 to 30 in cryptocurrency fraud in general.

Right. Our office has not received any of those complaints. I believe that those numbers are from an FBI report, so that's not something that our office is aware of.

Okay, that's all.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 106, House Draft 1, relating to condominiums. This measure clarifies the authority of condominium associations to impose fines for violations of the declaration, bylaws, house rules, or regulations adopted by the Condominium Association. And it goes on. But that's the first sentence in the bill description. First up, we have Phil Nerney.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Phil Nerney. I'm testifying on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. As amended, I am unable to suggest that CAI is able to support this bill any longer. If the bill is amended to incorporate the text of Senate Bill 147, Senate Draft 1, which has been through to the two Senate Committees. Excuse me. CAI would be delighted to support this bill.

Thank you very much. Next person said they wish to testify is Greg Misakian on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Again, I'm Greg Misakian, and I provided a fairly comprehensive written testimony. I'm just going to make a few comments and there's been a something that's occurred since my testimony that's very concerning to me.

So at my condominium association, we have a dispute that was for under $5,000 having to do with a water leak that came from a unit above to a unit below through the common elements. Without getting into details, there's no time. But that dispute, which lasted for years, ended up going to court.

And a kupuna has multiple legal issues now. He's got an assessment of almost $40,000 with a majority of that being attorneys fees. In addition to now it appears there's a foreclosure proceeding. So it's very concerning that these things are occurring.

What I do see is out of the woodwork, there's quite a few people from the trade industry that have come out to testify, the attorneys, the parliamentarians in opposition to this measure, this bill. I do support the bill, but I do realize that it's got flaws. I understand that.

And without an ombudsman, an office that, you know, the state would be able to intervene and help, that would be funded through the condominium biennial registration fees that are paid for a very nominal fee amount, there's not going to be any real resolutions to these issues. And I don't believe strongly that this is the right place, but it is a place. You know, it could be helpful to condominium owners. So with that, I will just make a quick comment. There's a couple of amendments that, one amendment I requested.

It looks like you've incorporated. Another amendment that I've asked if you could look at very quickly. One additional amendment for the number of days you have to request immediate mediation from 30 to 60. So if you could please look at that, in addition to please try to strike out anything regarding non-judicial foreclosures.

That's a very strong concern I have and many others have. So I realize there's an element of non-judicial foreclosure that still seems to be at play. US State Supreme Court said no at some point, but please look at that and try to remove that from this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And the final person wishing to testify is Christine Morrison on Zoom. Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 106? If not, just so the public knows, we received five testimonies in support, 21 testimonies in opposition on this measure. There being no further testimony, questions, Members?

If not, we'll move on to the next measure. Thanks very much to the testifiers. House Bill 70, House Draft 1, relating to condominium. This measure requires budget summaries to contain all required information without referring the reader to other portions of the budget and states that the defense of good faith compliance is unavailable to any association whose board adopts a budget that omits the required budget summary and clarifies the ability to enforce compliance with budget summary and replacement reserves requirements and provides that an association has the burden of proving compliance. First up, Phil Nerney.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Phil Nerney, and I'm testifying on behalf of CAI. CAI supports this measure. The effect of the measure should be to enforce financial discipline. Recently, the statute was amended to require a budget summary that has to go along with the budget that that is adopted annually.

What this change is proposed in House Bill 70 would do would make it clearer and that there would be teeth associated with not complying with that budget summary. The reason that's an issue is that people should be able to tell the financial health of their association at a glance. And the balance of my comments are in my written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And we have received your written testimony, and I've provided it to all the Members. Next person who said they wish to testify is Christine Morrison on Zoom in support. Not present. Next person is Greg Misakian. Back to you, Mr. Misakian. Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Again, I'm Greg Misakian. I do support this bill, and I do have additional concerns, as I do with many of the condominium bills that go through. Because at the end of the day, what our Committee Members and legislators need to understand is that these bills, quite frankly, don't have teeth. The teeth that the previous testifier was mentioning.

While it may sound like there's teeth, there's some more substantive information or requirements in these bills. They require the condominium owner to go to court quite often. You know, mediation, we've discovered, doesn't work quite well. And if you really want to get anything properly addressed, you have to get it adjudicated in a court, and it's very expensive to do that. So while this is important, also this particular measure will add some substance to the codified laws that are in place.

The teeth that we need are not within this bill. The teeth that we need are the ombudsman measure so that condominium owners have a place to go where a state agency that's regulating should be regulating condominiums. It is regulated through 514B as the statutes. That condominium owners have a place to go, and they can collectively bring their concerns to that office.

So I ask you to, you know, to support this. Look at my comments, look at any amendment requests that I made. But hopefully in the next half of the session, we'll get to a better place. I'm going to be providing a comprehensive report to all of our legislators. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Misakian. That's all the testifiers that said they wish to testify today. In total, we've received six testimonies in support, 18 in opposition, and one with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 70, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers.

We're going to move on to the next measure, House Bill 137 relating to firearms. This measure provides that felons that are in violation of the prohibition against owning, possessing or controlling a firearm or ammunition are subject to a mandatory prison term. First up, we have Mr. Bento of the office of the public defender and.

Good afternoon, Chair.

Good afternoon. Thank you for being here, sir.

Thank you. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is William Bento. I'm a Member of the office of the public defender. We do oppose HB137. We've outlined the reasons why in our written testimony, but I just want to point out a few things. The idea, I guess, of the bill is that it creates a deterrent effect.

I just want to point out that when I first started practicing at the public defender's office, practicing law in the public defender's office, the Legislature passed the repeat offender statute, which requires someone who's been convicted already of a class A or B felony, if they commit another felony, there's no probation.

They go straight to jail with a mandatory minimum jail sentence. Over the years, the Legislature has added to that a whole list of class C felonies that also qualify. But it has not made our state safer it hasn't deterred crime.

And the evidence of that is that Halawa, our prison is full over capacity and we're renting space in another state. So these types of measures, what they end up doing is filling up the prison sometimes with people that don't really need to be there. And so I've outlined a list of class C felonies that are non violent.

And if a person who's been convicted of repeated shoplifting a class C felony gets caught with a gun, now they're looking at a 10 year jail term. And we would have to rely on the Hawaii Paroling Authority to make a determination as to how many years of that 10 they have to serve.

And they have their own rules about that. And some people end up serving the whole 10 years at a cost of I think it's well over $100,000 a year per inmate. So this bill would try to capture people that probably don't need to be captured.

I've proposed language, our office has proposed language in the bill that I think would address the concern for people who you consider to be dangerous felons. Certain language changes could target those particular individuals. Thank you very much for allowing me to testify and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much.

And for those listening, in the testimony from the public defender, he said that could we could make a change to House Bill 137 so that it reads JHRS 1347 subsection J could read quote, "and if said prior felony conviction is that of a crime of violence as defined in HRS 134-1 the defendant shall be sentenced to to an indeterminate term of imprisonment as provided by law" end quote.

So that was a suggestion from public defenders. Thank you very much for that testimony. Next up we have Department of Law Enforcement on Zoom. Nope.

In support testimony support from Kauai County Council, from the Hawaii Police Department, from State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers, and also we have testimony on Zoom from Keiden Waltien, Prosecuting Attorney, Hawaii County. Please proceed. Aloha Chair, can you hear me? Yes, we hear you. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members of a county Prosecuting Attorney, Keiden Waltien. We stand in strong support of this bill. To my knowledge, this is the only bill introduced this session aimed at addressing gun violence by holding serious repeat offenders accountable.

Currently, a felon found in possession of a firearm ammunition is eligible for probation unless one of two things. One of two things have to be applied. Their prior felony conviction has to be one of the listed crimes under 706.606.5 and their new crime is committed has to be committed within a limited defined look back period.

Why we need this law as we all know, a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by a small percentage of the population. For oftentimes police come into contact with felons in possession of firearms during routine traffic stops, are concealed on felon's person when they're making arrests for an unrelated crime or for an outstanding warrant.

These encounters can quickly turn into very dangerous situations. We've had instances like that in the past. Back in 2018, Hawaii County Police Officer Bronson Kaliloa was shot and killed by Justin Wicke, a felon, during a traffic stop.

In 2021, Ryan Santos, also a felon, fired over 30 rounds at Hawaii county police officers who were responding to a domestic violence call before being shot and killed by police.

And last year, Sydney Tofukitao, also a felon, shot and shot his ex girlfriend multiple times later shooting at multiple officers, wounding two before he was shot and killed by Honolulu Police.

In Hawaii county between 2022 and 2024, a three year period, there were a total of 196 prohibited possession of firearms investigations which resulted in the filing of 315 charges. Felons know that they aren't supposed to possess firearms and ammunition. Each felon receives multiple instructions and orders regarding these prohibitions.

They hear it from the judge, their intake services officers, their probation officers and from their attorneys. Please consider the overwhelming support for this Bill. Chopo our police officers union, the Department of Law Enforcement, the Hawaiian County Police Department and our office of all submitted testimony in support.

In addition, as noted in my written testimony, our office conducted two online legislative surveys. In both surveys, a substantial majority supported the imposition of mandatory prison terms for felons found in possession of a firearm with over 86% in 2021 and over about 80% in 2022 supporting the legislation.

Keep in mind those surveys were conducted prior to any of the recent tragic events that had involved firearms across our state.

If you could summarize please.

Yes sir. We need legislation that supports law enforcement prosecutors efforts. HP 137 is that type of legislation. Let's focus on holding criminals accountable and and to help make our community safe instead of focusing on disarming law abiding citizens. We submit our written input and are available to answer any of your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Waltien. Next we have testimony with comments from Michael Rice on Zoom. Please proceed. Mr. Rice.

Yeah, I don't know if you guys can hear me.

We hear you. Please proceed.

Okay. All right. Sorry about that. I'm. I'm of two minds on this bill. I, I myself complain whenever there's incidents where, like, a convicted felon is caught with a gun and is just not out. Again, as they mentioned, the New Year's shooting where the guy shot his girlfriend and shot at officers before ending his own life.

He was caught, like six months before that with a machine gun and a high capacity magazine as. And that was like two months after being let out of probation. So it's. I. I support it in that regard, but I do have some concerns about the current law, but I don't.

I'm not sure if this bill is the vehicle to make those changes. Apologies. I'm trying to give testimony in two hearings. I need to get short. Thank you very much.

No problem. Thanks, Mr. Rice. Appreciate your testimony. And we received two testimonies in writing from individuals in opposition and one testimony in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 137? If not questions Members? Representative Vice Chair Poepoe.

For the Public Defender. What is considered possession?

Well, legally, there's two ways to possess. Actual possession. I'm holding this pen says actual possession and constructive possession. I don't have it, but everybody here knows it's mine, and I intend to pick it up.

So there can be situations where a person is not in physical possession of something, but it can become a factual question for a jury as to whether the person constructively possesses that firearm.

Okay, so just simply being in proximity, is there, like, a proximal limitation on what is possession?

No. There's some case law that talks about being in close proximity to an item, but not with the State of mind that's necessary to prove constructive possession. You could have something miles away that you've placed there and you don't have in your possession, but intend to possess it later.

So technically, you could be in constructive possession of that item. But I think what you're getting at is let's say there's four people in a car and there's a firearm in the car, whose gun is it? Right. So a lot of times the driver will be arrested, or if it's between the legs or in the. Under the.

The legs of a passenger, that person may be arrested. But that becomes, again, a factual question for the jury to determine.

I think also I was thinking about households where a felon might live in a household, and I'm not sure what the rules are on if another Member of the household is allowed to legally own a weapon or a firearm and you know, keep it in the same household and if there's like domestic, you know, a domestic call.

I'm just, I was just curious about that.

I think the State of the law tends to be in the area to have this. You know, it seems like I'm hesitating and only because there can be so many different scenarios. A person legally owns a firearm, possesses it, it's registered to them to have it in the household.

Another Member of the household may be disqualified from possessing that firearm. So it's a matter of are they possessing the firearm or not. It wouldn't, I don't think, preclude another person in the house to legally possess a firearm. It may not be advisable, but you know, under certain circumstances.

Thank you. Just trying to learn a little bit. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Other questions, I appreciate we can take the opportunities here to learn. That's the whole point of this. Okay, if there's no other questions, we will move on to the next measure. House Bill 111 relating to sex trafficking.

This measure authorizes civil claims to be made against a person, business, business owner, or business operator that profits from sexual exploitation or sex trafficking. It extends the statute of limitations for civil claims related to sexual exploitation or sex trafficking to 10 years. First up, we have the Imua Alliance in support. We have testimony from Karen Worthington in support. Testimony from Teri Savaiinaea in support. Amy Zhao in support. Travis Coloma in support. And testimony from Pikachu Billionaire on Zoom. Please proceed.

Am I going first?

We hear you. Go ahead.

Oh great. Thank you very much for talking about this bill. I definitely support it. You can see all my amendments and comments. We don't got the whole two minutes to go through this. But there's sex trafficking majorly going on the Big Island. At the castle in Kalapana, there's lava tubes where they're taking the children behind them and smuggle them through the boat ramp below in Kalapana on the right hand side.

If you go further past the castle, you're going to encounter the village. I'm saying in quotations, cause that's where they're getting impregnated girls, hapa, how you're going to see them wandering around, usually around Wednesdays when Uncle Roberts has his venue. But they do a drug circle every Sunday and they use the castle right there. There's no cell phone, there's no service. It's a one way in, one way out.

If you talk to anyone from Kalapana, they'll let you know the truth. There's also human trafficking spots in Ocean View. They got more guns there than the cops. Hilo Division 1 does not get along with Hilo Division 2. If Kelden Waltjen's still online, he understands. He knows because he dealt with it with Ms. Roth. I was there in the Big Island. I was just there recently with Project Nehemiah. And you got serious stuff going down because they are not even speaking English. They got Sinaloa Cartel, Jalisco Cartel, KGB, Russians, and all these other groups here.

So I highly encourage you guys to pass this bill, but put harsher punishments to deter these pedophiles, rapists from ever trying to sell our kids because they're looking for the bodies, the eye parts. They're going for 30 to 60 grand. Livers, kidneys, 100 to 200 grand. If you check the black market. It's really bad.

So I highly encourage you guys to pass this bill. And what's scary for me is that I look at the other human trafficking bills. There was about 11. There's only one on the Senate going through Senate Bill... One of them went through the Governor's package. All the other bills are stopped, including the House.

So I would like to see more support for aftercare for the survivors. Two, a black ops budget so we can take down the enemies and prosecute them. And three, we definitely need to work on communications and coordination with the state, local, nonprofits, community agencies, and the governments.

And also because you have your neighborhood boards, I would like to see you guys utilize neighborhood boards. If someone complains from Waianae, we go to neighborhood board, they contact their Council Member, their city, their Senator, Rep. And it goes through you guys so we can get this justice system and squared away. Protect our keiki. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. And finally, Kelden Waltjen on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney. We stand in strong support of this bill. We appreciate the Legislature's efforts, the Legislature's efforts to support survivors of sex trafficking and hold perpetrators and those who support their actions accountable.

As we all know, sex trafficking is probably one of the least reported crimes, with victims and survivors reluctant to report and cooperate with law enforcement. Unfortunately, that impacts law enforcement's abilities to hold offenders accountable and support victims.

Further exacerbating the need for this legislation is the risks associated for the most vulnerable in our community, our runaways, our runaway keiki, who may be desperate for help and looking for help in all the wrong places. This creates the perfect recipe for these individuals to be targeted by perpetrators who may even use other keiki in their recruitment efforts. We submitted our... We submit and available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 111? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to House Bill 1175, relating to the procedure for tax appeals.

This measure removes language specifying that an appeal from the tax appeal court be filed with the tax appeal court, allows an appeal from the tax appeal court to be filed within 30 days of entry of a final judgment. First up, we have testimony from Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom. Please proceed, Mr. Yamachika.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. This bill is substantively similar to House Bill 1806 of 2024, which this, which the House passed out last year. The problem that this bill addresses is this one. Normally in civil court, when you want to appeal from a judgment, you have to wait until final judgment is entered, which disposes of all claims and all parties, and you can't appeal before then.

However, in tax appeal court, there is a case called Alford v. City and County of Honolulu that says, no, that's not what you appealed from. You appeal from a previous order that decided the case, whatever that means, which creates a procedural trap which a former Supreme Court Justice fell into in the West Maui Resort Partners case.

What we're trying to do here, what this bill is trying to do, I'm sorry, is to basically conform what the rule of the tax appeal court is to civil practice so people don't fall into this trap, and it also modernizes and removes some obsolete language. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Sure. Thank you very much. That's all the testimony we received on this. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1175? If not, questions. Members? I have a question for Mr. Yamachika. Do you support this bill?

Tax Foundation technically doesn't support...

No, no, no. I know you can't lobby to support or against it, but it sounds like this approach appears to be fair. From your testimony, it says this approach appears to be fairer because of certain reasons. So that would indicate to me that you think this approach would be fairer than the status quo.

Yes.

Okay. That's good enough for me. Thanks for telling me. Thanks for your response.

Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, we'll go on to the last bill on our agenda, House Bill 403, relating to the Sunshine Law. This measure authorizes any member of a board to attend an informational meeting or presentation on matters relating to board business, provided that the meeting or presentation is not specifically and exclusively organized for or directed toward members of the board.

It repeals the requirement of a subsequent report of attendance and the matters presented and discussed that related to board business at the informational meeting or presentation. First up, we have Office of Information Practices. Hey, you're here. Thanks for being here. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. The Office of Information Practices opposes this bill. The reasons being, which is set forth in our testimony, is that the Sunshine Law requires that all government boards operate only in public meetings with proper six day notice. There are some exceptions to that. They're called permitted interactions.

This bill would change a current permitted interaction by allowing any number of members to attend what is called an informational meeting of another entity, and that can include a seminar, a convention, a legislative hearing. So the current law requires less than a quorum attend. This amendment or proposed amendment would allow any number to attend.

The current law also requires a report back to the full board on any board business that was discussed at the informational meeting. And this bill would allow any number of members to attend and would eliminate the reporting requirement. So we believe that this is in violation of the spirit of the Sunshine Law to promote openness. And I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here. Next, we have testimony and support from the State of Hawaii Early Learning Board. Testimony in support from the EUTF. Testimony in support from Kauai County Council. Testimony in support from Kauai County Office of the County Clerk. Testimony in opposition from League of Women Voters. Testimony in opposition from Public First Law Center. Mr. Creps, are you on Zoom? Please proceed.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Ben Creps. I'm with the Public First Law Center. You know, the Office of Information Practices hit the nail on the head. So this bill would blast a huge hole in the Sunshine Law, and it's not necessary. My understanding is that the primary proponent of this bill is the Kauai County Council.

But in 2016, the Legislature added HRS section 92-3.1B to afford the county councils the flexibility that they're asking for here. And that section allows an entire council to attend community meetings. But that section, unlike this bill, provides reasonable guardrails, like a limitation on frequency per month and also notice and record keeping requirements. So it reinforces that the public should at least be aware of what is going on still.

And nothing in the testimony here or in the companion measure indicates that that existing section is somehow insufficient or even if the councils have tried it. There is a reporting requirement for councils that use this section, and I don't believe that there have been any reports to the Legislature documenting that.

And we certainly wouldn't be opposed to a narrower, more surgically crafted exception where there's both a specific and demonstrated need, but that's not what we have here. So we respectfully ask this Committee to defer the measure. Available for any questions.

Thank you very much. And we received written testimony from two individuals in opposition. Mr. Misakian, are you wanting to testify on this measure?

I am, Chair. Thank you so much. Especially this one. This is, of all of them. I mean, they're all important, but this is very important to me. So I am submitting testimony as an individual, but I do serve on the Waikiki Neighborhood Board. And I would ask our legislators to...

To carefully look at bills when they're brought to the attention of our legislators who introduce them, to really understand what they're presenting. Because it's clear to me when OIP says this is flawed and when the last testifier said that, and especially when the League of Women Voters are saying it, that there's a problem.

And it should be easy to see when you get that up front. And so I know firsthand, because at the Waikiki Neighborhood Board, there's often issues with the Sunshine Law. There's been numerous violations of it. It's been addressed by OIP, there's been informal decisions made, and that's what spurred, actually spurred this introduction of this.

And I think there's another bill that's in the books right now. So when you look at this bill, there's two sections that you're striking out that are very important to the Sunshine Law. And I will make just one more comment. The neighborhood boards, as an example, we have delegates that will go to meetings.

They're supposed to go, they're assigned as a delegate, and bring back information from that meeting. So they're allowed to do that. One member, occasionally there's two. And we don't even get those reports on my board. I have yet to see any of these reports come back. So that's a problem in itself.

But all of this inclusive, and what you've heard today as far as testimony, is a problem. Our Sunshine Law has been around for a very long time. It should stay in place and it should be stronger, not weaker. So I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you very much, Mr. Misakian. And finally, Christine Morrison on Zoom in opposition. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 403? If not, questions, Members? I have one quick question for the Office of Information Practices, Ms. Amerino.

It sure appears from all the testimony that's come in on this that a certain neighbor island county council could use some training in the Sunshine Law and all the different parts of it and what it can allow and can't allow. Mr. Creps has described some of it. You're an expert in it. I just was wondering whether or not there is a possibility of training sessions for county councils, not just on one particular county, but all of them.

I'm happy to reach out to Kauai Council's Chair, any of the other county councils as well. We are gearing up with the Governor's Office and the AGs to hopefully, Attorney General, to hopefully do a state board training later this year.

That's great. This is part of the Kauai County Council package of bills introduced by the Speaker by request, so this clearly was a priority issue for the Kauai County Council. And it sounds like that they have another avenue under the current law that they may not be aware of.

And I just think it would be very beneficial if you would help educate them. With all due respect to the County Council, it's, you know, the Sunshine Law is complicated. And if you don't understand it, then you can assume some things that may not be accurate. So I will leave it to you to carry on from there.

Will do, Chair. I will reach out.

Thank you very much, Ms. Amerino. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers, and thank you to the Members for being here. We'll go right into decision making. Oh, did I have something? Did I miss somebody? Oh, please come on up and introduce yourself and provide your testimony.

Margaret Leong, Deputy Attorney General. I'm here to testify regarding HB 320. And Rep. Belatti asked me a question, and I want to be sure that I give the correct answer and I need to correct myself. She, I believe, was asking me specifically about an HD 1 subsection. Let's see, section 2D1.

Members, we're going back to 320, related to supported decision making agreements. Second page, second on the top. Go ahead please.

And I apologize. And she asked a question regarding section 2D1, specifically regarding providing paid services to the qualified adult. And I made the statement that I thought it was in the original bill. That is not correct. It was in the HD 1. And what was in the original bill and still remains in the in this bill as well is that they're also prohibited from entering into providing supportive decision making assistance for compensation. So I just want to clarify that because I think it's important that I provide the correct information. And I apologize for the error. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Members, let's go right into decision making. Okay, top of the agenda, House Bill 302. We've received testimony with conflicting amendments on this, and there are and it's not clear. I do want to move the bill out, but I'm not ready to make decision making on this today.

I would like to defer this until Thursday agenda and consult with the Health and CPC Chair to have them look at all the testimony and help me decide how to move forward on this measure. It's an important measure. I just want to make sure we get it right.

So we're going to defer HB 302, House Draft 2 to our Thursday agenda. Okay, moving on the next measure, House Bill 712, House Draft 1. On this measure, I would recommend that we move this forward with House Draft 2 to include the amendments from the Attorney General. They provided us with a proposed House Draft 2.

We also need to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. And on page four, line seven to 10, the language there is unnecessary and should be deleted. Section 481B-4 HRS already provides that any violation of any section of Chapter 481, which is the chapter this new language is being placed into. So there's...

That already provides that any violation of any section of Chapter 481B is deemed an unfair method of competition and unfair or deceptive act or practice under Section 480-2 HRS. So it's redundant and we don't need it in there. So I'm proposing to take that language out. Include the House Draft 2, as recommended by the Attorney General, and make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 712, HD 1 with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next bill, House Bill 1482, House Draft 1, related to controlled substances. I acknowledge the recommendation from Ms. Laulusa. I don't have prior concurrence on that one. We need to work on this bill moving forward. I suggest to the Members that we move this forward as is.

And I would recommend to the testifiers to continue their work on this. If it moves out of this Committee and is approved by the House, it will go to the Senate, and so they can continue to improve on it there. So I would encourage testifiers to work on it there. So my recommendation on House Bill 1482, House Draft 1 is to move forward as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1482, HD 1 as is. Representatives Cochran, Kahaloa, Garcia, Shimizu are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 470, House Draft 2, relating to noise. As the Department of Health had indicated to us, enforcement on this bill would be problematic, and it may and the bill might not even solve the problem. And they noted that there are no leaf blowers, string trimmers, or weed whackers that comply with this ANSI B-175 2 Class 1 rating anyway. So there's some real problems with this bill. It needs more work.

I've talked to the introducer, he's agreed to work on it and said that it's okay to defer this measure because it's an important measure to him and his community. But this is not an enforceable measure as it's written. So he will continue working on this, and so I recommend we defer this measure. Any comments or concerns?

Okay, we'll move on. House Bill 320, House Draft 1, relating to supported decision making. I think this is an important measure to move forward. I would like to recommend we make some amendments for HD 2. On page 10, lines 20 to 21, vulnerable adult is defined for purposes of Section 4. However, the term is also used in Section 2 on page 5, line 14. So I would like to consider moving... I would like to move the definition for vulnerable adult to the general definition section in Section 1.

So it's not changing the substance of the bill, it's changing the construction of the bill so that the definition of vulnerable adult is going to be in Section 1 so it's used for the entire bill so that it's consistent across the board. Okay. So that I would like to include in here. In addition, I would like to include the Attorney General's amendments that they provided in their testimony. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 320, HD 1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran, Kahaloa, Garcia, Shimizu are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 239, House Draft 1, relating to child abuse. I recommend we move this out as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 239, HD 1 as is. Representatives Cochran, Kahaloa, Garcia, Shimizu are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 918, House Draft 1, relating to labeling. I would like to include the Department of Health amendment on this one. Any questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 918, HD 1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran, Kahaloa, Garcia, Shimizu are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1277, House Draft 1, relating to digital financial asset. I recommend we incorporate the amendment from the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs as provided in their testimony and move it along. Any questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1277, HD 1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran, Kahaloa, Garcia, Shimizu are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next, House Bill 106, House Draft 1, relating to condominiums. After reviewing all the testimony, discussing it with Members, the introducer, the Chair of the previous Committee, we decided that, as the testifiers have said clearly, many of the testifiers said clearly that Senate Bill 147 has stronger language. It's preferred.

So my recommendation on House Bill 106, House Draft 1 is to defer this measure and then look for Senate Bill 147 as it crosses over so we can address it at that time. So questions or concerns on that recommendation? Seeing none. Thank you. House Bill 70, House Draft 1. I would like to move this forward as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 70, HD 1 as is. Representatives Cochran, Kahaloa, Garcia, Shimizu are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 137, relating to firearms. I would like to move this forward with the the amendment recommended by the Public Defender, which is found in their testimony which I read out during the consideration of this measure. Any questions or concerns, Members?

A defective date as well?

No.

Okay.

Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 137 with amendments. Representatives Cochran, Kahaloa, Garcia, Shimizu are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 111, relating to sex trafficking. I'd like to move this out as is with a clean date. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 111 as is. Representatives Cochran, Kahaloa, Garcia, Shimizu are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1175, relating to procedures for tax appeals. I'd like to move this out as is with a clean date. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1175 as is. Representatives Cochran, Kahaloa, Garcia, Shimizu are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Last measure, House Bill 403, relating to Sunshine Law. I really think that the Kauai County Council just needs some additional training, and I'm encouraged by Ms. Amerino from Office of Information Practices with her willingness to do so. Thank you very much. I note also that the companion measure, Senate Bill 270, was already deferred. I recommend that this Committee defer House Bill 403. Any questions or concerns, Members? If not, thanks very much. There being no further business before this Committee, we are adjourned.