Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Calling the Joint Health Human Services 9:30 calendar. Present with me is my co chair Senator Keohokalole, as well as Senator Fukunaga. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. In the unlikely event that we have to abruptly end the series due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on February 21, 2025 at 1:00pm in room 225. For those on Zoom, your audio will be muted and video disabled until shortly before it is your turn to testify. Each testifier will have one minute to testify. If there's a technical glitch during your time to testify, we may have to move on to the next person due to time constraints.

I will be reading a list of individuals who submitted written testimony for each measure. We apologize if the closed captioning does not accurately transcribe the names. If you're interested in reviewing the written testimony, please go to the Legislator's website. You will find a link on the status page for the measure.

We appreciate your understanding and remind you that the Committee does have your testimony, that I have reviewed them. And so I encourage you to use your time to either add additional comments or you can stand on your written testimony.

So first up we have HB 302 relating to cannabis and I also have my Vice Chair, Senator Aquino present. So first up we have HB302. We have Department of Health and support.

Morning Chairs Andrew Goff, Office of Medical Cannabis Department of Health. You have our testimony and support. I'm here for questions if you have.

Thank you very much. Next we have Clifton Otto, Akamai Cannabis Consulting providing comments on Zoom. Clifton, please proceed.

Aloha Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee's Dr. Clifton Otto, you have my written testimony offering comments. I just wanted to highlight this is a very important bill for patients, especially those on outer islands, who have difficulty accessing certifying providers. This bill also offers an opportunity to create other changes that would improve patient access and participation.

Namely allowing certifying providers to decide what qualifies what a qualifying condition is, allowing registrations to occur instantaneously and treating in state and out of state patients the same. So anyway, thank you for considering my testimony. I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Cannabis Industry Association in support. Blake? Oh, sure. Are you present? Next we have Carrie Ann Shirota, ACLU and support. Carrie Ann, are you present on Zoom?

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Next we have Josh Frost, Hawaii alliance for Cannabis Reform and Support began and grown dispensaries and support Drug policy Forum of Hawaii and support. Marijuana Policy Project and support Karen O' Keefe, are you present on Zoom? Please proceed.

Aloha. I'm Karen O'Keefe, Director of State policies, the Marijuana Policy Project. We strongly support this bill and the amendment requested by the Hawaii alliance for Cannabis Reform to allow physicians to certify patients for cannabis for any medical condition.

Providers can prescribe far more dangerous medications off label, and they should be able to do so for cannabis as well.

One in every five prescriptions is off label in the Us which means for a condition other than the one it was approved for by the FDA and at least 10 other medical cannabis states allow doctors to recommend cannabis for other conditions or all other serioUs conditions. We urge you to follow suit. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next we have Cure Oahu, Mihoko Ito and support. Mihoko, are you present?

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Master Shelby Pikachu, billionaire Ohana Unity Party and Kingdom of Hawaiian Islands in support. Master Shelby, are you present on Zoom? Not available in Zoom Chair. Next we have Michael Loyo Senior in support. Wendy Gibson Viviani in support. Frank Schultz in support. And we also have President Sanders Hashimoto and Senators McKelvey.

Anybody else wishing testifying HB 302, come on up. Identify yourself.

Good morning. My name is Emily Sarasa. I'm testifying on behalf of the ACLU of Hawaii. Sorry I missed the call earlier. We are testifying in strong support of HB302, which appeals the requirement that a provider patient relationship be established in person. As you all know, the ACLU of Hawaii is supportive of cannabis legalization for adult use generally.

But we are also supportive of expanding this relationship, and we have suggested amendments in our written testimony that we hope you consider. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing testify in HB302? Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none. Moving on. HB712, relaying to health. Excuse me. HB 1052. I think that's you. Right.

HB 1052. HD1 relating to universal Service Program. This measure clarifies that the Public Utilities Commission under the Universal Service Program may provide and may use funds from the Universal Service Fund to provide free telecommunications access to individuals with print disabilities. DCCA Division of Consumer Advocacy and Support.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Stand on our written testimony and support.

Thank you. HOI State Council on Developmental Disabilities and Support. Thank you. DHS Online and support.

Not available on Zoom Chair.

Thank you. PUC in support.

Aloha. Good morning. Chair Keohokalole, Chair San Buenaventura, Vice Chair, Fukunaga Vice Chair Aquino and. Members of the Senate committees on Commerce. And Consumer Protection and Health and Human Services. My name is Andrew Okabe. I'm the utility analyst at the Poly Utilities Commission. I'm here on behalf of the Commission. I sign the Commission's resident testimony and.

Strong support of HB 1051 HD1. I'm or any questions Committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you. National Federation of the blind of Hawaii. Mr. Cashel in support. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Keohokalole, Senator San Buenaventura, Members, Vice Chair, Members. National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii strongly supports this bill. I just wanted to appear to kind of put a name and a face to this. It's a very important program.

It's been conducted for the past two years, well, really of the past year under an appropriation passed two years ago under Act 247 and the Public Utilities Commission has put forward this bill to have the program continued under the Universal Service Program.

That's kind of a bureaucratic thing, but attachment to our written testimony gives you the details of what the program does and how it operates. Mahalo for your consideration and hopefully passage of this Bill.

Thank you very much. We also have written testimony from Frank Schultz in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? Yeah, I'll yield to the my co chair for the next measure.

Thank you very much. So next up is HB 1482 relaying to controlled substances. First up we have Deputy Attorney General providing comments.

Good morning. Alana Bryant, Deputy Attorney General. Our office has offered comments relating to law enforcement. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Jared Redulla, Department of Law Enforcement in support.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee, Jared Rudella, the Deputy Director for Law Enforcement. Our department is in support of this measure. This measure is important because it makes clear what is legal and what is not. The significant issue in this sphere is regulating these new emerging substances. And this measure is a positive step.

But I want to point out to the committee significant issues with enforcement in the area of hemp and synthetic cannabinoids. The first issue that we face in law enforcement is that we don't have the capacity to do meaningful lab testing to meaningfully enforce in this area.

We're going to need to identify not only the substance but to also quantify it. And right now none of the law enforcement labs in the state have the ability to to quantify these types of substances. And I've offered in our testimony what it would cost to gain that capacity.

And finally, we realize that these substances are connected to many emerging stores and kiosks in our community.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Redulla.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Department of Health in support.

Morning chairs, vice chairs and members. Andrew Goff, Office of Medical Cannabis Control and Regulation, Department of Health. We are in support of the bill. It does clarify that Delta 8 THC is a controlled substance and that would be helpful for enforcement. I would like to highlight some of the comments we made.

If we really do want to have a better enforcement mechanism for hemp in general around the state, I would echo what Mr. Redulla said on the criminal side, but also on the regulatory side, it would be really helpful to have a retail registry and age gating to ensure children don't get their hands on hemp.

Give Department of Health seizure authority. Right now we only have embargo authority, which means we would have to store it on the shelves. We can't take it off of the shelves. And then also it would help to have nuisance abatement and consumer protection issues.

And that would just kind of pull in other enforcement agencies, the Attorney General, Department of Law and other--

Thank you very much Mr. Goff. Next we have Honolulu Police Department in support. Domingo Manog.

Good morning chairs, vice chairs, member of the committee. We stand by our written testimony. Strong support, strongly support with this bill. I'll be standing by for questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have Mihoko Ito Cure of Oahu in support.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Master Shelby Pikachu Billionaire Ohana Unity Party and Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands in support. Master Shelby, are you present on Zoom?

Not available on Zoom. Chair

Nicholas Larenz, Drug Policy Form in opposition. Frank Schultz in support. Maigalo senior in support. Anybody else wishing testify on HB 1482? Members, any questions?

Yeah, I have a question.

Okay. Senator.

For the Honolulu Prosecutor.

Not here.

Oh, he didn't submit testimony on this. We'll do Mr. Redulla instead. Or actually the Attorney General's Office too. Why don't both of you come.

You come on up.

So what's the status of the Pinky's Hempire case? That was the case that was essentially investigated by an undercover reporter. I guess pursuant to some complaints of kids eating purchasing and eating high concentrated CBD products being sold in Waikiki and then I guess they ended up in the hospital or something like that.

Yes, sir. The- The case is presently in the hands of law enforcement being put together for.

So I'm assuming that's the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office.

It's ultimately going to go to the Criminal Justice Division.

Not- Not the Honolulu prosecutor.

The Attorney General.

The Attorney General's Office.

Yes.

So the Honolulu prosecutor hasn't participated in that at all?

None at all.

Oh, okay.

That- That was my understanding is that after spending months and months campaigning against adult use cannabis, doesn't appear that he's lifted one damn finger on this illegal hemp proliferation throughout the community. Is that fair? No, that's okay.

We'll- We'll go to the AG's office. Has the Homeland Prosecutor collaborated with your office at all on any enforcement whatsoever of the illegal hemp businesses that appear to be just exploding throughout our community, undercutting the legal dispensaries and potentially selling harmful products to children?

Senator. So I personally don't have a background in the Pinkies Hempire case. I'm not sure of the status. I can check on it. I am not aware of the prosecutor's office collaborating with us, but that's also something I would need to check on. Thank you.

Well, we can't check on it either because they haven't submitted any testimony on this, so it doesn't seem like they care. So that means ultimately the Attorney General's Office is going to have to make cases on this.

It would be the Criminal Justice Division of our office.

And your office is prepared to do that?

We. In our testimony, we did make a request for a certain amount of funds to add investigator positions to.

Great. Department of Health. Please.

Thank you.

Mr. Goff, you do have special fund money that was collected from the legal dispensaries that potentially could be devoted to support to the Attorney General's Office so that someone will prosecute cases on these illegal hemp operations that are potentially selling harmfully toxic levels of CBD and products. Probably the children.

We do have special fund money. I think our special fund statutory authority would need to be amended, but we could use that for enforcement.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you, chair.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Senator McKelvey.

I'll make it fast chair. I guess it would be. AG's office. Sorry, you drew the short straw again. Because the people. It's a chair. Noted. Aren't here to ask these questions of. But we're talking about illegal products that are being sold in stores all over Waikiki and elsewhere. Normal. Wouldn't in any other state.

Wouldn't that be the functionary of local law enforcement, the prosecutor's office? To shut establishments that are violating the law down. It wouldn't normally fall to the state AG's office to do it, would it?

Thank you, senator. I really can't speak to other states. I do know that in our state the prosecutor's office could take that on, but we do have other avenues, such as criminal or civil nuisance abatement, that where our office can Institute cases against these.

Do you have a power of forfeiture at this time?

We are, I believe, the Department of Health's testimony request the power of forfeiture to be added.

That would be a huge motivator because when I talk to law enforcement in other areas of the country, it's the forfeiturers why they actively raid these establishments. One raid could- allegorical reference. One raid pays for the entire Police Department's budget for the year.

So I'm hoping that that can be brought in the conversation as a tool to get some active law enforcement participation like we have in the other states. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none. You know, I have DLE. I have a question for DLE. Jared, it is. So you testified regarding lab testing requirements. I don't see a DLE request for monies. I know we have been working on with Senator Moriwaki the ability of DLE to collaborate with DoT's monies for the lab testing.

Okay. Is that fruitful or do we need to add in an appropriation language separately for DLE on this one?

Yes.

So I'm not sure if the DOT side of the conversation has any restriction on the type of drugs that could be analyzed in that proposed laboratory context. Typically, it's for traffic safety DUI type situations. Now, it could do that.

And if the conversation was to have a centralized laboratory to handle this, then in that conversation, our suggestion would be that the quantification instruments and the procedures, the validations, the employees, and that sort of support that we need should be built into that.

Yeah, I see the 1,316,302 startup costs that you put in.

That's right.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah, follow up.

So, I mean, you don't care whether the lab goes in the Department of Health or the Department of Transportation?

No, really, what we need is the capacity to.

But it would make sense for it to probably go in either. Right. I mean, you're saying the Department of Transportation's toxicology lab that deals with impaired driving. Right.

So that's precisely what we're dealing with here. When we quantify, we need specific instruments that can, like that used in toxicology to be able to quantify what's in these substances.

So just to make sure that there's some reasonable nexus, someone who is high on illegal amounts of CBD via ingestion of some unregulated hemp product probably will be impaired if they get behind the wheel and drive.

That's reasonable to think so, yes.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Jen.

Okay, thank you very much. And I have a question for Andrew Goff. So as Senator from Keokaloli pointed out, I noticed that this bill does not go to Wham, just goes to JDC. And so that would be my concern. Otherwise, we're going to have to add Wham in with the monies requested by the Attorney General.

Can that be taken out of the General Fund? There are discussions, committee members, as you could tell with the attached DM notes that we have made with the law enforcement authorities on this, that we were hoping we did not need to add in an extra committee to increase. To increase the enforcement ability. Will you be able to.

Would the special funds be able to cover the 750,000 that the Attorney General requests or do we need to put in an appropriation language, in which case this bill is going to end up having to go to Wham?

Probably going to go in anyway.

We're just going to add in one.

I will do it.

Probably not. Right? Because it's specifically for. I just answer the question.

Well, our special fund is the. The money in the special fund is from fees and fines from regulation. So it needs to be spent towards the cannabis industry.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay. Any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on. HB 712 relating to health. First up, we have. Excuse me, Department of Health and support. Nope. Okay. Dr. Lewin, state health Planning and Development Agency and support. Nope, I don't see him here. DCCA Office of Consumer Protection providing comments.

Okay, next we have PEP Free Habai, Aaron Rudick and support Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction and support. Nicholas Levens, Bio Innovation Organization in opposition, Foreign.

Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, Brian Warren, with the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. We did submit testimony for the record, which we stand on. I'd just like to convey that 340B program is a good program, but even good programs can be abused.

There's a lot of evidence, we detail it in our letter, that this, this program has been expanded over the years in ways that deviate from some of its original intent. And there's also a lot of an extreme lack of oversight at the federal level from the Health Resources and Services Administration.

Accordingly, while our letter that was submitted was an Opposed letter We would align ourselves with amendments that were submitted by PhRMA that seek to add some transparency provisions to this Bill to ensure that there is openness and transparency and accountability for 340p revenues. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Queen's Health Systems and support JC okay, next. Hilton Raethel Healthcare Association Hawaii and support.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to testify. We strongly support this measure that prohibits drug manufacturers practice that limit safety net providers access to 340B drug discounts.

Why hospitals are currently losing at least $30 million annually due to these restrictions and that we believe that we should join nearly 20 other states taking action to stop these practices. We have handouts that we've borrowed from the Colorado Hospital Association that isn't, isn't an testament but which we will provide.

The Committee showing the number of states pursuing or who have passed similar legislation, notably South Dakota and New Mexico just passed legislation on this matter in the last couple of weeks. It is especially important for us to keep as much funding for safety net providers in the state as possible.

And this version of the measure has consensus amongst all our partner agencies and we do appreciate the opportunity to testify. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Hawaii Pacific Health and support. Okay. William Goo Pharma in opposition.

Morning Chair, Vice chairs, Committee Members. William Goo, appearing out of Pharma which is the trade Association for a lot of the pharmaceutical companies in the United States. Pharma stands on its written testimony in opposition to the measure which Carte Blanc requires the providing of 340B discounted drugs to contract pharmacies.

Instead we have submitted proposed amendments as was referenced by the previous testifier concerning some transparency with regard to getting claims information on behalf of the manufacturers for the drugs that they provide. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next we have Ian Ross, Hawaii Waianae Coast in support.

Hello Chairs, Vice Chairs. Good morning. The 340B program allows the Waianae Coast Conference of Health Center to purchase medication at significantly reduced costs.

The revenues from this allow us to Fund many of the very important services we do from chronic disease management and social services, community outreach, transportation assistance for patients to help get to the care they need.

You know, in reviewing the types of legislation coming before you related to health this year, the Executive team in communication with me really emphasized that this is among our highest priorities because of how important it is to everything we do.

Furthermore, you know, this seems to be a case where we're able to follow the lead of other states that have been able to do this successfully and make this type of move. So we want to urge you to pass this legislation and thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. I see Michael Robinson in support. Yes. For HPHA, Hawaii Pacific Health.

Mike Robinson Good afternoon, Chair. Good morning, Chair. Yeah. We are writing in support of this bill. The the impact of the pharmaceutical restrictions is not hypothetical. It's amounted to about $12 million in reduced savings that we have experienced in the healthcare system.

And those savings are used to provide statewide services like the Straw Burn center, like our pediatric subspecialties. It is another form of allowable subsidy for programs that are geared for the beneficiaries of the 340 program. I don't characterize this as abuse. I characterize this as one of the few policies that enable safety net providers to be funded.

I also want to add that this is a bill that has been passed already enacted in eight states. It's survived legal scrutiny in both Arkansas and Louisiana. And the Supreme Court even denied cert when it got appealed to the Supreme Court indicating that this is not preempted by the 340B program.

States are allowed to make amendments to the program and I just wanted to share that as additional information.

Thank you very much. Infusion Access Foundation Sam Miller in opposition. Eric Abe, Hawaiian Primary Care Association. In support. Mike Nguyen of Aloha Care and support. Mike, are you present on Zoom? Not available on Zoom Chair Melissa Boom Garden, Hawaii Island Community Center Health center in support. Jason Yara in support. Osman Khani in support. Michael Silvan Support.

Andrea Staley. In support Dr. Ronald Taniguchi and support Frank Schultz. In support. Anybody else wishing testify in HB712 Members, any questions?

Yeah, I have a question. Okay, Senator, for maybe Hilton. Yeah. So the assertion being made in the testimony from the pharmaceutical companies is that there's a bunch of waste and that it's mostly going to benefit. This Bill will mostly benefit PBMs and large hospital systems.

It's complicated bill and there's a lot of testimony from the smaller hospital systems, I guess. Can you help us sort out the can two things be true at once?

The for any entity to qualify for this national program, federal program, 340B program, you have to serve a. You have to be a disproportionate share hospital. In other words, you have to have a high level of government funded, Medicare funded patients. So you're only eligible if you meet that criteria.

So it's what we call DISH funding disproportionate share hospital funding. That applies to the FQHC's Native Hawaiian Health centers as well because by definition they serve a underserved population. So you can only qualify now.

So whether you're a large hospital or a small hospital, it doesn't matter as long as you serve a, you know, like Queens for example, or Straw. They both serve, you know, the inner city hospitals. They serve a high number of, or they have as their patients, high number of Medicare and Medicaid patients.

And so they qualify, they have to qualify every year. So just because if you don't qualify, you know, if you, if you pay an exchanges that could take you out of the program. So there is a lot of oversight in the program. There are restrictions on the program. It is operating in Hawaii. It is designed to operate.

You know, I can't talk about what's happening in other states. That's not our responsibility. But in Hawaii this program is doing what it's supposed to do, which is providing vital funding for our hospitals and federally qualified health centers and Native Hawaiian health centers. Did I not sure if I answered all your questions?

I mean, I don't know if you did or you didn't. I mean the, the assertions being made by the pharmaceutical companies that there's all this, all this waste and abuse. I, I, maybe we'll do one of the pharmaceutical guys. Mr. Gu, or I don't know your name sir.

Is there any evidence of waste in the system in Hawaii?

I, I'm not aware of any waste as far as system in Hawaii. But what this transparency request will do is that it will allow us to at least look at that matter to see if some of the questions that concerns that we have can be addressed.

What concerns if there is no evidence of waste in Hawaii?

Well, the concern is that, you know, with, with the proliferation of the contract pharmacies, there are so many of them and, and a number of them are not even in Hawaii. So the question is whether a patient that does come to a contract pharmacy to purchase a drug is really qualified to receive the discount.

So that's where the alleged question is with regard to waste is concerned. In other words, is that patient qualified to receive the benefit?

So it looks like in your proposed amendments you're basically asking for four year audit of the hospitals in Hawaii to determine whether there's a problem before we advance the measure.

At least the opportunity to do that. Yes, to check on whether or not the concerns that the pharmaceutical companies have is really a valid concern. And we think it is because just of the nature of how contract pharmacies have proliferated. And certainly with some pharmacies not even being in Hawaii, the question is whether.

Whether in fact the intent of the program is really being met.

I mean, normally we look for some evidence of wrongdoing and then do an investigation.

You know, perhaps I can make that inquiry to see if.

Do you have any information.

So the. About Hawaii. About Hawaii, yeah. So there's no transparency into it. What we've seen is an expansion that has focused mostly less on the safety net clinics, more from those disproportionate share hospitals. And that's universal in Hawaii and elsewhere.

But in terms of what those funds are being used for, there's no transparency or no accountability into that. And that's why what we're asking for is I wouldn't classify it as an audit as more as transparency into what claims they're actually providing to patients so that we can ensure that these are not violating federal law.

All right, thank you.

Okay, I have questions. Okay. So at the. I mentioned this offline at the CSG annual conference in New Orleans, there was a breakout room on 340B abuses. Could any of you refer to that? I mean, you talked about it generally in your. So what kind of abuses do you expect? Or have you seen any in Hawaii?

So what we've seen from the abuses. And again, Madam Chair, I can't give you the exact number of contract pharmacies in Hawaii right now, but nationally, since 2010, you went from 2,000 contract pharmacies across the country to 194,000. That's like 4,000% increase. And it wasn't done to make access easier for patients.

It was done so that more of those hospitals, so that all of those claims can be scooped up by the hospitals. And it's almost like this issue of someone with a free refill cup.

And now they're saying, let's put all the straws in there and let's all try to get out of this every single penny that we can. And the problem is, is that while it's conveyed as something that doesn't cost taxpayers money and it's, zero, big Pharma can pay for this.

The problem is, is that all of these 340b drugs, those discounts, and when those drugs are dispensed, whether it's state Medicaid or private employer, the rebates that they were owed, they're not going to get anymore. So it's patients and it's employers and it's taxpayers that are actually paying for the 340b revenues.

So there's this sense that if you squeeze the balloon over here, it's not going to expand somewhere else. And that's not true. And that's why we're asking for more accountability to ensure that where this expansion is happening that it's appropriate and also some insight into those claims so that we can verify they're not violating federal law.

So from what I understand, There are about 1400 contract pharmacies in Hawaii and roughly just under 500 I think are not even here. So those are the numbers that we have.

And so there is some question, you know, just off the top as to how there is a benefit in Hawaii where the contract pharmacy is in Kansas City.

Okay. So my concern is also similar to Senator Kiwakolole and I, I see your proposed amendments. I'm inclined to do it except for the portion about the 2030. Okay. It seems to me, it seems to me with the added transparency, you'll be able to report back after the added transparency whether or not any abuses occur.

I agree.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Singan, can we move on to decision making? Okay, first up, HB302 Members, we have been in offline discussion with the dispensaries and I noticed that they did not update their proposed amendments and their written testimony. So I'm going to have to give you a lengthy recitation as to what is going to occur in HB302.

First up, we're going to accept Akamai Consulting proposed amendment to redefine debilitating medical condition, make it cleaner. And that is what has been referred to in barriers, written testimony.

But we're also going to add in, and this is the part that they didn't do written testimony on a definition to the waiting room which we had approved in prior sessions to be an area where non medical cannabis can be sold, including but not limited to hemp products and accessories for the use of medical cannabis.

We're also going to add in hrs. 329d6sub r as follows. R. Dispensary may purchase cannabis and manufactured cannabis products from another dispensary.

The Department shall authorize the dispensary to purchase cannabis and manufactured cannabis products from another dispenser in a manner prescribed by the Department by rules adopted pursuant to 329d27, provided that the sub 1 the selling dispensary may transport not more than 800 ounces or other amounts with prior approval by the Department of cannabis or manufactured cannabis products to the purchasing dispensary within a 30 day period.

Sub a cannabis and manufactured cannabis products purchased pursuant to this section intended for direct retail sale to the patient that meet all applicable packaging, labeling and testing requirements at the time of transport to the purchasing licensee's production center or one of its retail locations.

Cannabis and manufactured cannabis products purchased pursuant to this section intended for further manufacturing by the purchasing dispensary at the time of transportation shall be transported to the purchasing licensees production center. Sub 2.

The cannabis and manufactured cannabis products are transported between the dispensaries for the medical sales, scientific use or other legitimate purposes approved by the state and sub 3.

The selling dispensary must submit a transport manifest of the cannabis and cannabis manufactured products to be sold to the Department before the sale is made, after which they may immediately proceed with a transfer of cannabis and manufactured cannabis products Support nothing in section shall we leave any dispenser of its responsibilities and obligations under this chapter and Chapter 329.

In a separate part, we're also going to insert SB 1064 SD2, which died in the House but was passed by this Committee and any other technical amendments because of the lengthy amendments we have provided and a defective date of December 31, 2015.

Any comments, questions, Concerns Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote Chair votes Aye.

Voting on House Bill 302 House Draft 2 recommendation of the Chairs to pass. Fifth amendments Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted Chair.

So I now transfer to Senator Keohokalole.

Members voting on HB302. HB2 recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any discussion? Seeing none. Chair Votes Aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes Aye. [Roll Call] Measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure is HB 1052 HD1 relating to universal Service Program. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with a defective date of July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN Members present any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none. Measures adopted.

Thank you.

Okay. For HHS same recommendation. Vice Chair for the vote. Excuse me.

Okay. Four Members are present Any reservations? Any Noes?Recommendation is adopted, Chair.

Thank you very much. So for HB 1482 offline, as you have found out, we have discussed what is necessary to increase the enforcement of the illegal hemp products and the illegal cannabinoids and so Chair's recommendation is to delete the contents of HB 1482 and put in a more robust enforcement mechanism as recommended by omccr.

I would refer all Committee Members to what was listed by ONCCR in that we are going to have a section 328G adding a new section on unlawful hemp retailing and distribution.

The idea is to create a hemp registry and allow for immediate seizure and not having to go through the embargo as to what the Attorney General has referred to. So we're going to give OMCCR immediate seizure capability of illegal hemp products for those retailers that is not in the hemp registry.

Basically, a person or entity required to be registered as a hemp retailer or hemp product distributor under this chapter commits the offense. We are automatically going to put into the hemp registry all the legal hemp retailers and hemp product distributors as well as the medical cannabis dispensaries automatically into this hemp. This registry.

And anybody else wishing to sell hemp legal hemp products need to be registered with the onccr. We're also going to give the departmental health inspection authority under 328G to ensure that the products that are being sold meet legal requirements. We're also going to give forfeiture, confiscation and seizure disposition products. You folks all have this list, right?

Otherwise I'm going to have to mention everything to OMCCR. We are also going to give because of the problems in that the hemp industry is being controlled by Department of Agriculture, whereas the cannabis industry, medical cannabis industry is being controlled by Department of Health.

We are going to give OMCCR the ability to regulate hemp products so that they will be have the ability to seize and have this hemp registry. So the Office of Medical Cannabis Control Regulation is new duties to include that of regulating hemp products.

And again, we're also going to give the Attorney General's power to enforce nuisance abatement for hemp violations and give increased consumer protection under 712.1270 to be able to go after the places that sell illegal hemp products.

So it's not only the ability to immediately seize and immediately and find and forfeit, but to also be able to go after the establishments themselves if they continue to sell illegal hemp products. And we've also included penalties to be included. In addition to the memorandum that each of us have been provided.

We are also going to add in two appropriation languages. One, a blank appropriation to the Attorney General's Office in the Committee report.

We're going to put in the $750,000 request and we're also going to put in a blank appropriation Department of Law Enforcement regarding the startup costs and I noticed that they also included a request for a criminalist and we're going to put in the Committee report the request that DLP work with existing funding with the Department of Transportation to consolidate any potential state land for illegal hemp testing as well as for illegal hemp testing pursuant to this Bill.

Any comments, questions, concerns and technical amendments as necessary because the amendments are substantial defective date December 31, 2050 to ensure further discussion because the okay.

Any comments, questions, concerns saying none Vice Chair for the vote A four Members are present Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation is adopted, Chair.

CPN Members same recommendation passing with amendments Any discussion I just make one note now that it's my turn to call the vote. Essentially what we are doing is adopting the VAPE regulatory framework for these unregulated CBD retail locations that are proliferating throughout the islands. So they're if you're a CBD retailer you now need to get registered.

If you're not registered you are in direct violation of the law and we are bringing them into the regulatory regime. The majority of these amendments were already included in the adult use framework so we are just applying them now to the medical cannabis framework by uniformly regulating all cannabinoids. On that note Senator Oah yeah just.

Real quick since he said it's a lot of regulation I would rather see us legalize marijuana. Maybe there wouldn't be a need for all these side things. Just want to throw that out there.

Well I would note that your concern is noted and as I mentioned before if the Honolulu prosecutor took five minutes to read the adult use Bill he would have found this regulatory infrastructure in the measure. Senator McKelvey.

No, I thank you for passing this along. I also want to just appreciate putting the forfeiture in there. I think that that's the way to put provide funding. I don't think it's going to be very bleak to provide funding at this late hour given what's happening with the Fed. So thank you for that.

Any other discussion? Seeing none. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes Aye. [Roll Call] Measure is adopted.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. So for HB712 Chair's recommendation is to pass this with amendments.

We're going to adopt farmers proposed amendments except that portion which delays which is the beginning portion of their amendments that except January 1, 2030 because we are going to be we're going to require that 712 be effective immediately with the proposed amendments and technical amendments as necessary and a different defect date of December 312050. Any comments, questions? Yes.

Senator McKelvey so the audit thing is going to go in there then?

It's not an audit thing. It's basically requiring reporting. Yes, but but we're not going to stop what what is required in 712. We are going to allow more 340B okay.

I appreciate the measure moving forward. I'm just worried that adopting Big Pharma who obviously doesn't like this bill's amendments the path that we get in it. But I appreciate you what you're trying to do. Okay. Thank you. Chair okay.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation is adopted Chair.

CPM Members passing with amendments. Any discussion WR for Senator McKelvey. So noted. If there are no other comments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. If Members present any additional reservations or objections noting Senator McKelvey's reservations measure is adopted. Okay. And with that we are adjourned. Thank you very much.

Good morning and welcome. This is our Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection, Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 10:00 a.m. Regular hearing in conference room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol. The first measure on the agenda is House Bill 939, House Draft 1, relating to alcohol.

This measure defines low alcohol by volume spirits beverage and establishes a tax on low alcohol by volume spirits beverages at a rate of 93 cents per wine gallon and sunsets December 31st, 2028. First up, Department of Taxation with comments.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair.

Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. We'll be standing on our written comments. The only thing I do need to note is our impact assessment hasn't changed from our prior testimony. I noticed it's not in our current version. I can read it in if that's required or if you have it in the prior testimony.

Good morning.

Yeah. So for fiscal year 2026, the 11-month period, I have a revenue loss of 2 million. For 27 and 28, a revenue loss of 2.2 million, and then fiscal year 2029, the seven month period there a revenue loss of 1.3 million.

If you'd like to just share it.

Other than that, I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Lanikai Brewing Company in support. Good morning.

Hi, how are you guys? Steve Haumschild with Lanikai Brewing. Thanks for your time and hearing this bill.

Just very much in support of this as as a brewer and distiller within the industry, this is a great product for us to be able to get out there and compete with a lot of the mainland brands that into Hawaii.

And this bill just kind of clarifies everything to make it clean for us to be able to have more products, to hire more community members, and continue to thrive in the state. So thank you guys very much.

Wine Institute in opposition. Good morning.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Public Health Institute in opposition online.

Not available in Zoom, Chair.

Mihoko Ito, on behalf of Wine Institute, we're in opposition to this measure. Just very briefly, this is creating a totally different tax category for one segment of products. So all alcohol is taxed by gallonage, and you're creating a brand new tax category just for one segment of products.

And also, you know, we're concerned that this represents a revenue loss for the fastest-growing segment of the alcohol industry. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Koloa Rum in support.

Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to testify. Koloa Rum Company is in support of this measure. As many of you may know, particularly since COVID, ready-to-drink cocktails has become a huge thing in our industry. And of course, we are primarily a distilled spirits company.

We produce rum, and all of our products are taxed at the high price rate of five dollars 98 cents per gallon, regardless of alcohol content. And conversely, wine and malt beverages are taxed at a much lower rate. And again, it's regardless of alcohol content.

We're simply asking for parity and have the tax structure be based on alcohol content rather than just volume. Otherwise, it's discriminatory against distilled spirits products. It makes it much more challenging for us to be competitive in this burgeoning new market space that is ready to drink cocktails. So we kindly ask for your support.

Thank you very much. Johnson Brothers of Hawaii in support. Good morning.

Your position on the bill, please.

Oh, I'm sorry. We're in support of the measure. This bill will bring our statutes up to date into the current market.

Good morning. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Emmanuel Zibakalam here on behalf of Johnson Brothers. We just want to echo some of the earlier statements saying that this bill.

As we've heard before, there are new markets coming out, and this kind of levels the playing field and taxes our alcohol by volume in the appropriate manner. And so we feel like it would be great for the State of Hawaii and for local producers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Maui Brewing Company in support. Good morning.

Good morning. How are you, Jarrett? Thank you for the opportunity to testify. And I'll be brief. I'll stand on my testimony because I think a lot of the facts are there. I'd like to address some of the opposition. I think in fairness, it does not create a whole new category. This will still be taxed based on gallonage.

This better reflects the market today, where even just five years ago, we saw craft beer in particular be the dominant growth engine for alcohol beverage. And now we're seeing that RTDs and other beverages, things that weren't contemplated when this tax category and these categories were created.

I'd add, with great respect for the wine industry, 244D codifies a cooler beverage. That is all that the low alcohol ABV category is. It's a blend of an alcohol and a mixer to create a lower alcohol blend.

And I think it's unfair for the Wine Institute to leave out the fact that the wine industry actually already enjoys this.

They pay $2.12 a gallon for wine, but if they mix it with juice and flavor, it's 85 cents I think it's a little disingenuous to, to hurt the distillers in this state who are producing a beverage from local products in many cases to fill a category, to fill a need that is already happening now with addressing the revenue loss.

We, we believe very much like I sat in front of you 20 years ago, to help to create the cottage industry that is craft beer here. By being a more favorable state for these industries, we create a local alternative to what's already being imported.

And for me, I'd rather be hiring, I'd rather be selling products that are made here by our residents for that community, because these beverages are going to be imported or they're going to be made here. So I believe that this, this does level the playing field and it creates that category.

So we have a way to talk about these beverages. I think it's very simple in 244D to talk about it in a cooler beverage category. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Tax Foundation with comments online. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We'll stand on our written comments and be available for questions.

Thank you very much. We also have written testimony from Kauai Beer Company in support, comments from the Beer Institute, Big Island Brewhouse LLC in support. Hanalei Spirits Distillery Corp. in support. Kona Brewing Hawaii in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, questions? Senator McKelvey.

No, I, I see you quote the direct revenue loss right in your testimony. However, if you work with DBAD on trying to see what the net effect is because obviously when you're creating more economic activity, more people are getting hired. You have general excise tax being paid, you have payroll tax being paid.

You have all of these taxes that are now being paid, and exponentially more of right with the growth and development of this. So what is the true, and this actually is a question I've been asking, I think for 20 years. What is the true net to the State of Hawaii?

Because I was economic development chair, I fought this battle of tax forever on, everything's a revenue loss, so we should do no economic development at all. But yet if you do economic development, we create more revenue for the state. So what at the end of the day, what would be the net of all of this?

Have you ever looked at all of this, looked at other states, and what the net is?

I mean, to be frank, Senator, that's beyond my expertise and beyond my knowledge. I wish I had a good.

But you could see where I'm coming from.

I can understand the concern that you want to have a true accounting for all the variables. What is the real-world impact? And I under, I understand that.

I'm just saying that that's beyond my knowledge.

No, I understand. I'm putting it out there for your department and maybe when you go back, I know you guys got a really busy season about to come up here shortly, but this is something I think which really would help the public and the legislature and everybody and when we talk about economic development initiatives, trying to grow our own industries, what is the true net?

Because if it's always judges a loss, then we won't be doing anything. Right.

I can definitely pass that along. I, I'm not able to address it here before.

Understood, sir.

You may interject.

No, I understand. I just had the opportunity to ask this out loud at the department

So I wanted to do that. So. And then just want to, I don't know if you can weigh in on this the discussion.

Before you change the subject, may I interject and follow up?

This sounds like a reso.

But perhaps this is a request that you might be willing to take back to your director that, from now on, when the Department of Taxation submits testimony on tax impact on bills of this nature that are essentially economic development in objective that the Department that DBEDT submit supplemental testimony with some sort of assessment of potential growth impact.

I will definitely pass that along, sir.

Paired testimony like that seems like it might be helpful.

Very helpful. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you.

Thank you.

Oh, just on the wine tax thing that came up. You know how the testifier said that already wine is taxed at a different rate. They add juices or other products to it so.

I'm sorry, you had a follow-up question?

I, I think, I don't want to comment on the policy impacts, but as far as the way that is structured, that is a correct statement. It is also worth pointing out that the definition of distilled beverage actually currently has in a recognition that there's a certain amount of water added.

For example, when a product is sold as a distilled sorry as a distilled spirit at 40% ABV, a whiskey, for example, is brewed or sorry is distilled at a higher ABV and is watered down to reach the amount that it's sold at the shelf. So you already have distilled beverage plus water to be a product that's sold.

This does recognize that you can add more water and it's taxed at a different rate. I believe the Tax Foundation did comment on the merits of that. I don't want to get into the merits of it, but I. As far as a structure, it does sort of exist already.

Okay, I appreciate the letting me take the Committee down the rabbit hole. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions? I have one for Tax Foundation. Tom, are you on? This is again, off topic, but do you think it would be unreasonable, Tom, for DBEDT to provide some sort of supplemental testimony to Matt to pair with DOTAX's testimony on, you know, immediate tax implications of these type of measures?

I mean, you guys follow them all.

Well, obviously you'd have to ask them to do it.

Yeah, yeah, I wouldn't ask you, but I mean, the question is whether it would be unreasonable.

Tom said it's a good idea. Thank you, Tom.

I don't think so. I mean, if, if DOTAX can have economic impact, you know, people look at testimony, DBEDT can too. They have, they have.

Okay, we'll move on to the next measure, which is where HB 1291 HD2 relating to agriculture. This measure extends the offensive false labeling of Hawaii grown coffee to include roasted coffee. First up, we have Hawaii Department of Agriculture and support. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Keohokalole, Vice Chair Fukunaga and Member McKelvey. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this. We strongly support this measure. I am available to answer questions. I'm Richard Cohen from the Measurement Standards Branch.

Department of Agriculture.

Department of Agriculture.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have written testimony from Heavenly Hawaiian Farms in support. Hawaii Coffee Growers Association in support. Hawaii Farm Bureau in support. Hawaii Food Policy in support. And Frank Schultz in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members questions for Department of AG. Nope.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move on to the final measure. HB1370, House Draft 1 relating to taxation. This measure amends the definition of draft beer used in liquor tax laws to mean beer in an individual container of five gallons. Department of Taxation with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. The only supplement I have to our prior testimony is the general fund impact, which we estimate at 0.9% per year through 2023. Beyond that, I'm available for questions, and I'll incorporate the prior questions you had in the last bill.

Thank you. Lanikai Brewing in support.

Hi, I'll just add. Thank you. Thank you again for hearing management support. Just add logic and reason to this real quickly. Provided just pictures of this, just to make it a little bit easier for you guys to understand what we're looking at here is two different kegs. They're taxed at two different rates.

Both of them are made out of stainless steel. Both of them are filled at the brewery in the exact same way. The larger keg on the left is taxed at a lower rate than the keg on the right. And ultimately, what we're asking here for is for these to have parity. I mean, they're both.

It's either draft versus package. The smaller keg on the right is actually taxed at the same rate as a can of beer is, although they're consumed in different ways in different places.

The genesis for having these smaller kegs is there's a lot of restaurants and bars throughout the State of Hawaii, specifically neighbor islands, that don't have the room in the space for these large volume kegs. So it kind of gives them a disadvantage by them being taxed at a higher rate for a smaller volume.

So the goal is this is just draft parity, where it's simply draft versus package. Thank you guys very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Maui Brewing Company in support.

Hello again, Chair, Vice Chair, Senators. Yeah, as Steve said, I think the picture tells the story. Draft beer, in my opinion, is anything served out of a faucet. We all know it when we see it. We go to the restaurant, we go to the bar. I'll have a pint of for a small keg.

A five-gallon keg to be taxed at nearly twice the rate as a larger keg is, is a disparity that I think needs correcting. I think it's important to note in beer, total beer, not just craft, but all beer served in Hawaii, less than 14% of that beer sold in five-gallon kegs.

These are from the large brewers. Whereas with the craft brewers, we're talking about 30 to 50% of our beer being sold in these smaller kegs. So it's a, it's a huge disparity, but it absolutely weighs heavily against the small local producers versus the big producers.

And I think if we step back to when these tax categories were created, you know, back 1978, the year I was born, there were 80 breweries, 79 breweries actually in the country. There are over 10,000 breweries in our country today.

And we've seen restaurants go in since I was a kid, to now go from having one, two, maybe three faucets because you had the big brewers that said, you know, it's a Bud bar, it's a Coors Bar, or Miller Bar. Right. Primo, maybe. Now that we have so much choice that the consumers have voted.

They want the choice in beer. Restaurants put in 12, 24-yard house has over a hundred. We have 72 at our Waikiki location. There's no way you're going to store a big keg to meet the consum. So having the five-gallon keg, that's what gave birth to this situation. So currently the statute stands at seven-gallons and above.

Nobody uses a seven-gallon keg. So, five-gallon or what's commonly known as a sixtel will achieve parity with draft beer. And then, then we have clean, which is 12-ounce cans and bottles, versus draft beer coming out of the same faucet taxed at the same rate. So we're in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Tax Foundation with comments online.

Thank you. Chair. Vice Chair, members of the committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. As noted in our testimony, we went back to the law in 1986 when the allenage tax was instituted for the first time. And that's when the differential rate for draft beer versus other than draft beer came into effect.

It turns out that the that the draft beer was intended to reflect the lower price at which beer sells in kegs. So if the industry is saying kegs are now five gallons then it would make sense to you know, do this amendment. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We also have written testimony and support from Kauai Beer Company, Kona Brewing Hawaii, Kauai Island Brewing Company, Big Island Brewhouse, Hawaiian Ola Brewing Corporation. Again, all in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, questions? Okay. If there are no questions or comments, then let's move into decision making.

The first measure on this 10 a.m. agenda, and we also have a decision-making agenda immediately thereafter. The first measure is House Bill 939 HD1. The recommendation on this measure is to adopt the proposed amendments submitted in Maui Brewing Company's testimony, amending the definition of low alcohol by volume spirits beverage.

There's already a defective date on this measure, so we'll just be moving it out with the SD1. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes aye. Senator McKelvey?

Senator Richards excused. Senator Awa?

Measure is adopted.

Yes.

No.

Thank you. Next measure is HB1291 HC 2 relating to agriculture. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with the defective effective date of July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Okay. If not passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. If the members present anyone voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none. Measure is adopted.

Thank you. Final measure on this agenda is HB1370 HD1 relating to taxation. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with a defective effective date of July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. If the members present any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none, measure is adopted.

Good morning. This is our Wednesday, March 19th, 2025 CPN decision-making agenda. It's 10:00 a.m. and we're in Conference Room 229. We are reconvening to vote and make recommendations on two measures that were heard last week. The first measure is HB958 HD2, relating to transportation.

Thank you. We will adjourn that 10:00 a.m. agenda.

The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments. This was a measure that was jointly heard between the TCA and CPN committees last week. We will insert sections 237 through 11, 26 to 29, 32 to 34 from Senate Bill 1117 SD2. We're basically inserting the Senate position on this E-bike bill into thishouse measure.

We will also leave the defective date the way it is, as we made changes. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Yes.

Senator Richards is excused. Senator Awa?

No.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes aye. Senator McKelvey?

Measure is adopted.

Next measure is HB420, HD3 relating to remedies. This is the CRA bill Members, the recommendation on this measure is noting the moving parts on this. The recommendation on this measure is to delete the contents of the measure and insert the Senate position in Insert the contents of Senate Bill 1650. We'll also defect the effective date.

Oh, we don't have to do that anymore. We're making amendments. So the recommendation again is to adopt the language of Senate Bill 1650, which is a Senate vehicle addressing the same subject matter, the Contractor Repair Act. Any discussion?

I was fine with this one, but I voted no on the Senate. Time to review it. I voted no already on it.

But I was going to vote for it, for this one based on testimony.

So noted here, potential opposition to this measure.

Well, there's a defective date on this measure, and it is a moving target, so.

Thank you. I prefer the Senate version, so I'll be voting.

As noted by the comments, there's a diversity of opinions on this measure we've heard. Yeah, this is at least the third hearing we've had on this measure in the last two years, and there are, I believe, at least six drafts of the bill at this point.

We're trying to get there, and the recommendation is based off of our intention to try and get to a bill at the end of the session so that we can address the underlying issue that's trying to solve any other, so, so noted on the comments. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Senator Richards is excused. Senator Awa?

Aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes aye. Senator McKelvey?

Yes.

Thank you. Measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. The final measure is HB807, HD2 relating to condominiums. Members, we deferred action on this measure last week because there were a list of amendments that were proposed by the stakeholders on this measure. We're trying to put something together that will work. You've been provided those amendments.

So rather than reading them verbatim, I'd like to ask if there are any comments or questions? Okay. And if not, then Vice Chair, we are passing with amendments, and the Chair votes aye.

Measure is adopted.

Yes.

Senator Richards is excused. Senator Awa?

Aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes aye. Senator McKelvey?

Thank you. We are adjourned.