Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Good morning and welcome to the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. I'm Senator Jarrett Kehokalole, Chair of the CPN Committee. This meeting is being—this is our Thursday, January 29th, 2026, 10:00 AM agenda in Conference Room 229 at the Capitol. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. For everyone in the room, if you just give me a couple of minutes to go over particulars since this is the first hearing of the year.

For those watching online, in the unlikely event that we experience technical difficulties and need to abruptly end this hearing, we will reconvene to address any outstanding business on Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Conference Room 229 and a notice will be posted on the Legislature's website.

This is a 90-minute time slot for this hearing and as such, this Committee observes a two-minute testimony time limit. If you've submitted written testimony, it has been distributed 24 hours prior to the convening of this hearing to the members.

I have reviewed the testimony and so, while you are free to clarify or emphasize written remarks in your two minute time, please, we encourage you not to read verbatim the entirety of the testimony and if you are a professional on the clock, I highly encourage you to stand on that testimony and know that we may have questions after.

And if you'd like to make yourself available then we'd love to have you do that. For those testifying remotely, please note that your audio will be muted and your video will be disabled until it's your turn to testify.

If there are any technical glitches during your turn, we may need to move on to the next testifier just to keep the hearing moving, but we will try to get back to you if we can. I'll be reading the names of individuals who submitted written testimony for each measure.

If the closed captioning doesn't transcribe your name accurately, we apologize, and I know how you feel. If you'd like to review written testimony, all of the testimony that's been submitted for each bill will be made available on the Legislature's website.

If you turned it in on time, which is 24 hours before the convening of the hearing, it was made available online this morning. And the rest, the entirety of the testimony, will be made available sometime after the hearing adjourns.

And lastly, please remember that in accordance with the rules of the Senate, we observe the rules of decorum here. So, individual personal attacks or accusations about any of the other testifiers or any of the members of this Committee are prohibited and will be addressed by me at the Chair's discretion.

So, thank you, and we look forward to hearing your testimony. I also want to note really quickly, for the last two years, we have been observing, we've been engaged in a pilot project around the notice of these hearings.

The last two years, we've observed in this Committee 96-hour hearing notice requirement for bills being heard for the first time with a 48-hour testimony deadline requirement, and we were publicly publishing testimony 24 hours out. This is the third year of that pilot.

We will be engaging in a survey of the community that engages this Committee, which are members of the public who, as you folks know, get special treatment in this Committee because they are not on the clock when they come here.

They come on their own dime because they really care about the issues and then, the professionals, so that we can get some feedback. The pilot will be conducted differently this year. Because of the confusion about the testimony limit, the testimony deadline, it will still be 96-hour notice on our hearing agendas.

We will default back to the standard 24 hour testimony deadline.

And because some professional advocacy organizations were taking advantage of the publication of the public testimony a day out, intentionally submitting their testimony late, and refuting testimony submitted by members of the public, we will make the testimony available in the morning and not give professionals 24 hours to write substantive refutations of community testimony.

But please, please continue to engage and for folks who frequent this Committee, please participate. We're trying to get some feedback to see how this stuff all works out. So, with that said, we'll move on to the agenda. The first Bill is SB 2004, relating to outdoor advertising.

This measure increases the penalties for any person who violates the state's laws relating to the display of billboards or any outdoor advertising device. We have first up, Henry Curtis, Life of the Land with comments. Okay. We also have written testimony from Hawaiian Electric in support and the Outdoor Circle in support. That's all the submitted testimony we have.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Okay, if not, then we'll move on. The next measure is SB2039 relating to elections. This measure prohibits certain. Oh, wait, yeah. Altogether we had the three testifiers in the last Bill. SB 2039, relating to elections prohibits certain business entities from engaging in election campaign finance activities.

Let me see. First up we have the Attorney General's office offering comments. Good morning. Morning.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee. I'm Deputy Attorney General Zheng Charles Lee for the Department of Attorney General. We submitted our written comments for this Bill, and I'm available for any of the questions that you may have. Thank you very much.

Next, we have Josh Frost in support. Good morning.

Thank you. Josh Frost. I'm in my individual capacity. I know some of you know I work for the ACLU. They are not participating in this particular legislation. So I'm here on my own behalf. I appreciate the bill's introduction. It's important to have these conversations.

I think we can all agree, at least on some level, you know, the damaging effects that money has had on our political system locally and nationally. You have my written testimony. I'm asking that the Bill be amended to include all corporations and unions. The best way that this approach works is if it's meted out with an.

Even hand to all eligible organizations and businesses. So thank you very much. And I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have. Tom Moore from the center for American Progress offering comments online. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Tom Moore. I'm a senior fellow for Democracy policy at the center for American Progress in Washington. I'm the author of the strategy that underlies several of the bills that are being introduced in the session this year.

As you handle these bills, you can hear a lot about the difference between corporate rights and corporate powers. And I thought I might take a little bit of time to make the distinction as clear as I can, because it took me months to get it straight when I was working on it.

And the best way I've figured out to think about it is none of you nor I have the power to fly. And I mean, flap your arms and fly. You know, our creator did not give us that power. Birds, bats, pterodactyls, yes. Human beings, no.

But if the Supreme Court came to one of you and said, Senator, you have a constitutional right to fly, I don't think any of you would go to the roof of the Hawaii capitol and give it a shot.

Because no matter what a court says about your right to do something, it doesn't change the underlying reality that you can't do it. You just don't have the power to do it. It doesn't matter what any lawyer or any judge says about it. The same thing goes for corporations.

Corporations get every single one of their powers from the state.

And if the state of Hawaii decides to no longer grant the power to spend in politics, for example, to the corporations that it creates, then in some ways, it doesn't matter much what the courts have to say about that, about the right to do that, because without the power to do so, the capacity to do it, the right to do it, doesn't have anything to attach to.

Every reform we've seen in the past 16 years has tried to regulate the right of corporation to spend in politics through Citizens United and a bunch of other cases, the Supreme Court has pretty much shut that pass down.

But it has never, ever said that states have to give the power to spend in politics to the corporations that it creates. In fact, it said the opposite, that states have full power to mess with the corporations powers at any time for any reason. So fixing corporate dark money is much easier than we thought.

All we have to do is shorten up the list of powers that we give to the corporations and we're done. It's not regulation, it's redefinition. And that's why it works. Thank you and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Next, we have Alhapa in support online. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha. My name is Aria Juliet Castillo. I'm here today on behalf of Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action in support of SB2039 through our reclaiming Democracy work. We spend a lot of time with everyday people who care deeply about their communities but feel pushed out of the political process by money and corporate influence.

SB 2039 speaks directly to that frustration by helping bring elections back to the people. This Bill does not address every issue, but it does take an important step. And by putting this question before voters, it's really respecting the people of Hawaii to make decisions about what kind of elections we want to have going forward.

For these reasons, we strongly support SB 2039. And I have more detailed comments submitted in written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Lahaina. Strong online and support.

Not pressing on. Zoom. Chair.

Thank you. We have written comments. We have written testimony in support from 81 individuals who indicated that they would not be present and comments from eight individuals in total as well. So that's all the written testimony we've received. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Yeah, please. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Cameron Hurt. I am the program Director for Common Cause Hawaii. We are standing in strong support of this Bill. We know that Citizens United, what we got from that ruling was something that we were going to have to deal with. If not money, big money would run.

Rampant in our politics. It's come true. We saw this past presidential election cycle. Reach over a billion dollars in spending. What this Bill allows us to do is to try to combat that through the legal processes. The Supreme Court doesn't say that we cannot.

It says that we have to work within the realms by structuring the definition so that corporations are not able to not only be corporations, but also essentially serve as PACs. This is a great way to bring the choice back to the people. It is a great way to curve big money influence.

And we know that we're only going to see more and more, especially as. Corporations become more and more and more powerful. Other than that, we will stand on our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You know, I'm not sure if we have you in the record, so if I could ask you to just check in with the Clerk before. Before we. Yep. We'd love to have your written testimony on. We might have it. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Members questions. Senator McKelvey.

I don't know who to ask this of, actually. Maybe it's ACL, maybe Attorney Attorney General. We heard the request made to expand this to all the labor unions and unions to. Would that be possible under this Bill and the structure, considering you're trying to redefine what corporations can and cannot do?

I just want to be very careful and not say anything that has not been vetted by the AG but from my understanding, I mean, if you're not comfortable and you want to send a letter and do an official opinion, that's fine.

But I mean that, because the request was made in front of the Committee, expand this to include all unions, too. So the question is, could that even be possible under this Bill and the approach that's being tried by the proponents?

I don't know. I will have to get back to. You on that with the legal analysis. Okay, thank you. I appreciate you. Thanks. Chair.

Any other questions? Okay, can we have Mr. Moore online? I have a question. Yeah, hi. Can you try and answer that one? And then my question is, can you give us, as briefly as possible. A. Comparison of the Bill that you reference in your testimony and this draft?

Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. I actually, I totally agree with the Attorney General's assessment of 2039 as it's written right now. And adding unions and other organizations to the structure that's in there will not help. There is still a. It is still a regulation of rights, the kind of thing that the Supreme Court has knocked down.

The fact that it's paired up with 2040, which is the constitutional amendment, doesn't help it still. It still violates the Hawaii, even if it's in the Hawaii Constitution, it would still violate the United States Constitution.

The I've been working on this for the last two years and the actually last 10 years and when I was at the Federal Election Commission as an attorney and now with the center for American Progress and this powers based approach is the only thing I've ever found that will actually work.

And that's what SB 2471 is based on. And basically instead of there's, there's two very separate sets of authorities that the state has.

There's this regulatory authority that you use all the time for people and for corporations and say like you have to register for this and you can't do that and don't murder anybody and don't drive 150 miles an hour in a school zone and all those kinds of things.

These are all regulations that are subtractive and kind of like, you know, tell people what they can't do or what they have to do and so forth. The 2471. And that's where 2039 sits. And that's a problem for political speech regulation.

2471 sits on the other side, which is to say like, hey, we create you, the people of Hawaii. The state of Hawaii creates corporations and gives them all of their powers. The power to own property, the power to sign contracts, everything, everything. And we've given you this General grant of powers for over 100 years.

Well before statehood, it was you, the Hawaii had. They kind of jumped on the bandwagon of General corporate charters and, and lots of corporate powers long before even a lot of mainland states did. And it's if everybody went to that and everybody, every state gave all the corporations all the powers.

But they did it for competitive reasons and no Supreme Court case has ever said they had to. So those power grants have sat there for 100 years and the courts have started to say in Citizens United, in other cases, oh well, you gave all these powers.

Those powers include the power to spend in politics, which nobody ever meant when those things were first passed. This 2471 and bills that are passing around the country, I'm sorry, they're being introduced around the country. Basically just say like, look, Supreme Court, we're going to be really clear about this.

This General grant of powers does not include the power to spend in politics. These are the powers that we give our corporations and these are the powers that we allow out of state corporations to exercise in our state. And that is, it's not campaign finance.

It is corporate regulation, corporate definition and it's based on 200 years of the foundational corporation law, that the Supreme Court has never said that a state has any limits on how it can set and reset corporate powers. It has never said that it can't punish a corporation for going beyond the powers that the state gives it.

These are really foundational bits that they've just been kind of sitting in stone for the last hundred years. But every state has reserved the ability to change up those powers at any time. So 2471 really taps into that.

You think that. Can you. Can you. So within that context, I think I got it. Thank you. Can you answer that question about the unions from that perspective?

Yeah. So if you're on the regulatory side, it doesn't matter if you're talking business, corporations, nonprofits, you can't do it to anybody. You know, the Citizens United itself was a Virginia nonprofit C4 corporation. And so you cannot regulate their ability to spend independently in politics. That just doesn't matter what collection of entities you've got on this side.

But on this side, on the power side, if that's what you're. And you're just granting a slightly shorter list, you probably, you know, it is most fair and best legally to include everybody. Whether it's unconstitutional to leave out one group or another, I don't really know.

My recommendation when I've been putting this theory forward, is to include everyone. And actually it's the nonprofits, the 501c4 corporations that are the problem. They are the source of almost all the dark money in our system. And if you don't include them, you've got a problem. If you don't include unions, you have a problem.

They can spend money out of their treasuries without disclosing it. Unions do have an ability to go to their membership and get political contributions to their pac, the way they always did before Citizens United. So they have the ability to adapt pretty well.

As it relates to SB2471, would amendments need to be made to the Bill or is it sufficient as it was drafted?

No, 2471 is sufficient distraction. It is, it is clearly on the power side and it includes all entities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any, any follow up questions? I'm confused. We're on 2039.

Yeah, yeah, I'm inclined to put the, the make the changes that are asked by Mr. Moore and some of the other testifiers, which is to just insert the contents of 2471 since we already got it queued up.

Okay, quick question though. So this doesn't affect PACs, it doesn't affect nonprofits, it doesn't affect unions. Right. This Bill, the Bill, this novel approach you've come up with wouldn't affect any of that, right?

No, no, that's not correct. Sorry. It does not affect PACs or any kind of political Committee, candidate committees, party committees. Those are all.

I mean, direct donations from corporations seem to be in comparison to PAC donations and activity. I mean, isn't that the lion of what the big money concerns have come out with have been about political action committees and about some of these organs? So they would not be. They could still come into a.

Blow up a race and spend as much money as they want even if we pass this thing, right?

Well, no, there's a difference. So PACs are regulated. You know, they have to register with the state of Hawaii, they have to register with the Federal Election Commission. If you're a regular pac, the amounts in and out are limited and everything's disclosed. Even a super pac, everything's disclosed.

The big problem we have seen the last 16 years is very wealthy individuals giving money to dark money groups. The dark money group gives to a super pac. The super PAC discloses its contributions, but it only discloses the name of the dark money group, which is not helpful at all.

What this reform would do, it doesn't change, doesn't fix everything, but it does prevent a high net worth individual from laundering their money through a C4 into a super PAC. They can spend as much money as they want, but their name has to be attached to it.

And that is a very big difference from what we have right now. If 2471 were to pass, every dollar in the system would come from an individual and every dollar would be attributed to that individual. That's a very big difference.

So this past there were no more PACs couldn't spend in races anymore. They would be prohibited. No. So disclosing something and prohibiting something are two different things. I think the proponents want to see them out basically prohibited, not just disclose. Which you're right, that currently have all these disclosures, but there's no prohibition against them.

So my point being is that even with this on the books, you're still going to have the very same issues that people are upset about insofar as the money and politics through these other entities. Right?

No, no. You will not.

Be prohibited across all these entities if they're included.

Right. So unions will not be able to give money to a super PAC. Business corporations will not be able to give money to a super PAC. C4's dark money groups will not be able to give money to a super pac. They're all out. They're out of the spending and politics business altogether.

So anything that does come to a super PAC is only from an individual or any other PAC is only from an individual. Political action committees. Political committees are designed by law to spend in politics. You don't want to get them out of the business of politics because that's literally the only reason they exist.

What you want to do, though, is make sure that no one's playing games with it so that they are disclosed and every dollar is coming from an individual. That is.

You're saying it's good that PACs are involved in elections.

So political action committees are one type of political Committee. The other types are candidate committees, party committees.

I want to focus in on this because I believe and agree with what all the proponents are saying. But where is the big mag? Where's the big money coming from? PACs are a huge player in these elections. Huge amounts of spending in there.

So knowing that we could actually put a prohibition against this activity in elections would be, I think, a huge gain for people who want to see this role of undue money coming into races in large amounts.

Yeah. So any reform that touches the ability of individuals to give runs into a constitutional buzzsaw. You know, that is, you know that. That is where you know that that becomes a problem because.

And actually in way to think about it, if you think about the powers and rights, again, you're cutting off the power of corporations to do this stuff. That's fine. You can do that because you create corporations. You can do that.

You cannot cut off the power of people to do any of this stuff because they don't get their power from you. So that's the reason that, that taking this kind of approach to political action committees or other kind of political committees doesn't work.

There is a separate effort, there's a Bill in Congress to regulate super PACs the way regular PACs are. Larry Lessig of Harvard Law has a initiative that he did in Maine that's before the First Circuit, right now, that would take out the unlimited contributions part, which would solve it, basically.

But the big thing that we see right now, the big problem we have right now is corporate money flowing into packs, flowing into dark money groups, you know, flowing out of unions, flowing out of groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, which is the C6, I believe that is the. It's. It's the.

If you can cut the flow out of all that, then it's you know, the money that PAX would spend. It's like, okay, you can take $5,000 from an individual and you can spend $5,000 on the race, on any given race that is manageable. And it's all disclosed. That's not the kind of PAC money people are complaining about.

What they're complaining about is, you know, undisclosed super PAC money just flowing through. And that is the bulk of what we've seen for the last 16 years.

Well, I think a lot of people here are upset about PAC influence in elections out here. They're definite concern because they do play an outsized role. A pack coming into a race could blow a race one way or the other really easily with the spending they can do.

Well, but I'm just trying to, you know, I hear what you're saying and it's a good Bill, a good approach. But I just want to make sure that when the public understands what is going to happen with this and what's not going to happen.

Right, yeah. No, thank you for that. It's, I think in some ways, like people do, they talk a lot about corporate tax because that is something that you can get your hands around because they, they are regulated somewhat, they could be differently regulated.

And so that, because people just thought that jar and corporate money has been untouchable for the last 16 years, a lot of the energy has gone to PACs. Like, okay, let's get angry at PACs and corporate PACs because maybe we can do something there that could be legal where all this.

No, no, we've been told that it's not. Now you can do something here. And this is where the bulk of the problem is. I think the anger has been focused on PACs just because there's been a glimmer of hope that you could do something there.

But the, the real problem has been on the corporate and dark money side.

Okay.

All right. Thanks, Chair.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much for that. We'll move on to the next measure, which is SB. 2042 relating to insurance. This measure reduces the unimpaired minimum capital and surplus that Class 4 sponsored captive insurance companies are required to maintain under certain circumstances. DCCA Insurance Division offering comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is Shelby Taguma. I'm here on behalf of the DCCA Insurance Division and the Department stands on its written testimony. I'll be available for any comments later. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next we have Hawaii Captive Insurance counsel in support.

Aloha, Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Shimamoto. I am the current President of the Hawaii Captive Insurance Council and I'm here to speak in support of SB2042. Just real briefly because we have submitted written testimony.

This bill does make a narrow, carefully conditioned adjustment to minimum capital and surplus requirements for core entities within a Class 4 Sponsored Captive Insurance company where the core entity does not retain risk, it doesn't affect the Commissioner's current statutory authority to set capital requirements where risk actually resides.

And so we believe this bill reflects sound risk based regulation and helps ensure that Hawaii remains remains competitive. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have three under individuals who submitted written testimony, all in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Okay. Seeing none. Members, any questions? Oh. DCCA, please. So in your testimony, you're saying that there's a provision of the bill that's not necessary. Can you briefly explain why?

So we don't oppose the 100,000. We just feel that, that the specific language provided that this sponsored captive insurance company does not retain insurance risk is unnecessary because the commission already has the authority to require a capital amount higher than what's in the statute and based on the captive's risk profile.

Also, none of this disqualifying language isn't present for any of the other classes. So we feel that there might be some confusion. Also, the term retain insurance risk might need to be defined. If that's, that's kept in there, we are concerned that might inadvertently change the Commissioner's existing discretion.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Shimamoto. Any concern with omitting that provision?

Not really. The. I think the language that the provided language that was just referenced to is there because it's a unique structure where the Corps doesn't and shouldn't be bearing risk. So it's just to clarify that because it's unique to that structure.

So although other, other classes of captives don't have the same language, they're not structured the same way. But I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it being removed.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, we'll move to the next measure, SB 2043 relating to insurance. This measure allows captive insurance companies that are not risk retention captive insurance companies to apply to the insurance Commissioner for certificates of exemption from examination after meeting certain requirements. DCCA offering comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Andrew Kurata and I'm here on behalf of the Insurance Commissioner of the of the DCCA.

The DCCA submitted written testimony with comments on the bill the one thing I'd like to point out is that the Department does have some concerns that the bill will dilute the regulatory standards of the Hawaii captive insurance laws and may contribute to a negative perception of the state's regulatory standards.

Other than that, we stand by a written testimony and I'm available for any questions if you have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Captive Insurance Counsel and support.

Good morning again, Members of the Committee. Paul Shimamoto, on behalf of the Hawaii Captive Insurance Council. Of course we do support this. We have submitted written testimony. I think the Insurance Division's concerns about perception have long been discussed.

And in fact, this language of the bill that's presently before you does reflect agreed upon language that of course, industry and the division have largely hammered out over the course of the last year. So I think it does reflect a collaborative approach. I think the concerns about negative perception for the domicile.

Actually, I think what this bill actually does is it encourages gold standard performance and responsible self regulation and that captives that want regulatory flow flexibility, you have to earn it through transparency, discipline and sound governance. So we stand in support of the measure.

Thank you. Yeah. Brown and Brown Alaka' I Global Incorporated and Aon Insurance managers all submitted written testimony and support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members questions? Senator McKelvey. Apologize.

So you said you had hammered this out with the Insurance Division. It's agreed upon language. But then you heard the concerns of the Insurance Division. So it's clearly not agreed upon language, is it?

Well, actually. Actually it is because we actually sat in Senator Keahkolole's office to come up with the language that's here. But did the Insurance Division agree to it? They did. That's why it's here. So it's a perception issue. What I'm understanding, it's not a problem with the language. It's a perception issue. We have understood that.

We've talked about that with the division. But notwithstanding that, they did come to the table and, and largely agree to the.

I'm just trying to reconcile how you agree with something and then maybe that's a question for them, sir.

Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. The Insurance Division's testimony was offering comments. Yeah. If there are no other questions, we'll move on. Or unless you want to.

No, no, no, we're good.

Okay. Moving on. SB 2044 exempts a dormant captive insurance company that has been issued a certificate of dormancy from certain taxes and the requirement that its governing body hold at least one meeting each year in the State first up Insurance Division and sport.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Shelby Taguma again, on behalf of the insurance commissioner, DCCA. We stand on our written testimony and support and I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's see. We have Matthew Takamine, Brown and Brown in support. Okay. Hawaiian Captive Insurance Council in sport.

Members of the Committee, good morning again. Paul Shimamoto for Hawaii Captive Insurance Council will stand on our testimony. Happy to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have Christina Kamaka in support and Alakai Global Incorporated in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, any questions? Okay, we'll move on. SB2132 relating to dental insurance. This measure requires dental insurers to file all proposed plan rates and rate changes for dental insurance plans with the insurance commissioner.

Authorizes the insurance commissioner to disapprove the proposed plan rate if the dental loss ratio for the plan is less than 75%.

It also establishes the method to calculate a dental insurer's dental loss ratio and requires dental insurers to include dental loss ratio information in their annual reports to the insurance commissioner and requires the insurance commissioner to publish certain report information. First up, Insurance Division with comments.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committees. My name is Justin Chu with the Insurance Division. We stand on our written testimony providing comments and we're available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Dental association and support. Thank you very much. We have Hawaii Dental Service in opposition. Good morning.

Aloha Kakahiaka, Senator Keohokalole, Vice Chair Fukunaga and Members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Diane Paloma. I'm the President and CEO of Hawaii Dental Service. HDS strongly opposes this Senate Bill.

While we definitely support transparency, this bill risks destabilizing the dental insurance market here in Hawaii, increasing administrative and benefits Administration costs, driving insurer exits and potentially raising premiums for Hawaii consumers dental loss ratio. And our written testimony is moving across the continental US it does differ from medical loss ratios so they are calculated a little bit differently.

Which is why Congress intentionally exempted dental benefits from the ACA's medical loss ratio requirements. For this reason, some of the experience in other states kind of demonstrate what unintended consequences come about. A dental loss ratio.

In Massachusetts in 2024, a DLR dental loss ratio DLR law passed required dental insurers to spend at least 1883% of premiums on patient care. And this bill differs that it's 75%.

While HDS is currently in compliance with such standards, the additional restrictions and regulatory requirements in Massachusetts have resulted in insurers exiting the market, reducing competition, leaving some members without coverage, protection or options, and contributed to increased premium rates. Refund requirements, which is also in this bill, create administrative complexity for employer groups.

So when we provide refunds, we give them to employer sponsored plans and they would be responsible for distributing the funds to individual employees. Many transparency provisions already exist. We already meet many of the reporting and transparency requirements included in this bill.

For these reasons, HDS respectfully opposes this bill and considers the broader impact of consumers, employers and the stability. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We also have testimony, written testimony in opposition from the American Council of Life Insurers, in opposition from the National Association of Dental Plans, support from William Rioseco and opposition support, opposition from ahip. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Casing none Members. Any questions? Okay. If not, we'll recess.

Reconvening our 10am Agenda for decision making on these bills. The first is SB 2004 relating to outdoor advertising. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments. We will defect the effective date of this measure to 1-1-3000 Members. Any discussion? Senator Awa.

So I understand we have a problem here. When I first started campaigning, I would see other candidates posting on government properties, breaking the rules. And I then learned that it's $20 and it doesn't really matter to people. I get it. So I get why we want to increase it.

The problem that I have is the enforcement part of it and adding jail time to it. And so if there's a business who has a yard sign and they get busted and now that business owner can face jail time, that's concerning.

I would be okay with, like I said, a pilot project and you specifically focus on candidates for office and see if we can start start there before we spread it out to the rest of the public. So for that reasons I'll be a no on this one. Respectfully thank you for that.

I can appreciate that. And that potentially I think is a conversation that we should have with the agencies like the Department of Transportation going into this election cycle. I would note that the jail time penalty pre exists in the statute and so jail time is not being added by this proposed legislation.

This violation already was a petty misdemeanor. What's being proposed here is simply raising the potential penalty, monetary penalty from $25 to 100 with a maximum of a thousand from 500. And so the recommendation is to so so your opposition vote is noted. Any other comments? Okay. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. [Roll Call] Three in support, one excused and one in opposition. Measure is stopped.

Thank you very much. The next measure is SB2039, relating to elections. The recommendation is to defer this measure indefinitely because the measure is relating to elections. And as we noted in this robust conversation, the subject matter of this bill is around the powers afforded artificial persons in the state of Hawaii.

And so although I was inclined to adopt language in another measure, that measure has since been granted a referral to this Committee and we will hear it next week. And because the title is more appropriate and the contents are what we were going to move out of this, I was inclined to move out of this Committee.

Anyway, we'll defer this measure and then schedule that one. Any comments?

Chair to be clear, because we have a defective title problem, we're going to make 2471 the vehicles for discussion, right?

That's right. Okay, thank you. That's right. My intention is to schedule that that Bbll for hearing on Tuesday. Okay, moving on. Next measure is SB2042 relating to insurance. The recommendation on this measure is to adopt the the recommended deletion of the qualifying language noted in the DCCA Insurance Division's testimony. There are also technical, non substantive amendments.

Because it has a ways and means referral, we will defect the effective date of this measure to January 1, 3000. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. [Roll Call] Measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. The next measure is SB2043, relating to insurance. The recommendation on this measure is to keep the discussion going and pass with amendments defecting the effective date of the measure to July, January 1, 3000. There are also technical, non substantive amendments. Members. Any discussion, this is the one we assure. That's right.

Okay. Reservations.

Thank you very much. Any other comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. [Roll Call] Your measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next measure is SB 2044 relating to insurance. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with a defective effective date of January 1, 3000. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. [Roll Call] Thank you. Measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. And the last measure on this agenda is SB 2132 relating to dental insurance. The recommendation is to defer decision making on this measure to Tuesday, February 32026 at 9:30am in Conference Room 229.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.