Senate Standing Committee on Health and Human Services

Calling the Committee on Health and Human Services 130 calendar, first hearing of the 2026 session. You're welcome to HHS for today's hearing. We are convening in room 225. I would like to introduce my new vice chair, Senator McKelvey.

And because this is the first day of the first hearing, I think for the Senate Senators will be coming in. Okay. And although they're not available right now, they have read their testimony. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube in the unlikely event that we must abruptly end the hearing.

So due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 1pm Friday, January 302026 in room 224. And a public notice will be posted on the legislator's website to facilitate this hearing in a timely manner.

For those of you who have done this before, you know I am pretty strict with my one minute testimony. Okay. I really. And I see Shay there laughing because he knows that I am pretty strict. I encourage people to give us written testimony so the public knows what the testimony is prior to the hearing.

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

We appreciate your understanding and remind you that Committee does have your testimony and those have come to me before. Know that I have read your written testimony. So if you're willing to just rest on it, that would be wonderful. You are allowed to add additional comments or you can stand on your written testimony.

So use your one minute time wisely. Okay, thank you. First up, SB 768 relating to taxation. It refers to alternative water source income tax credit. First up, is Department of Taxation providing comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee feel a little bit odd coming up and speaking after that, but I'll be as quick as I can. We'll generally be standing on our written testimony.

I do just want to point out the comment that we do have regarding the elimination of the $500 as a standalone, but it's keeping the $500 a cap if that is the intent, assuming that drafting issue is resolved. We do have a revenue estimate, expected revenue loss of 6.8 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2028.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Tom Yamachika testifying for Tax foundation of Hawaii providing comments. Tom, are you present on Zoom?

Thank you.

Yes, ma'. Am. Thank you for. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We think this program like this is more appropriately a subsidy. It can be better implemented as a subsidy program rather than messing up the tax system with it. We're happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Austin Shiloh Martin testifying for Libertarian Party of Hawaii and opposition. And are you present? Please proceed. You have one minute.

Aloha. Thank you. I'm Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii. And I don't think that we should be messing with the tax code and making it even more complicated even though I have a catchment. Reality is, is that most improvements to property are things that we need to ask government for permission for and that's a huge problem.

My written testimony does not accurately reflect the the matter on this. Unfortunately the Bill number got messed up with another. So I'll weigh in on that one as well. But the issue here is that we don't need more subsidies, we don't need more tax carve outs.

What we really need is freedom for our agriculture sector and for people to be able to build catchments without asking government permission. Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii. Have a great day. Thanks.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Nash Witten in support of anybody else wishing to testify on SB 768. Okay. Seeing none. And I don't have, I don't have any late testimony regarding this. Okay, Any questions? Okay, I just have one clarifying question just to make sure. The Department of Taxation, you expect a 6 million dollar.

6.8.

6.8 million dollar loss?

Yes, beginning fiscal year 2028.

2028. Okay, thank you very much.

That number, I don't have that calculation.

That was super important because you need to show the math. I mean that's a high number considering the catchment systems are pretty limited in their use. And also in the future, I know it's not your responsibility, but there's clearly there's going to be a benefit to the state with get correct.

Potential increase in GET from the purchasing people making the decision, hiring of workers to install. So maybe in the future working with DBED to come up with a net number for the committees to look at so we know what is the true loss after potential revenue impacts that could be seen and also what the methodology was.

How many numbers? How did you get those numbers to determine 6.8 million? I understand I could pass that on. No, appreciate You. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate you, Chairman.

Okay, thank you. I have no further follow up questions. Any other people you want to ask questions of? Okay, moving on. SB 389 relating to General excise tax expands the General excise tax exemption by Act 47 to optometrists, audiologists, chiropractors, healthcare related goods purchased under Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare. First up, we have Department of Taxation providing comments.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Robert Avila. On behalf of dotax, the Department stands on its written testimony providing comments and I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Tom Yamachika. Again, are you available, providing comments?

Thank you. Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax foundation of Hawaii. We had in our comments just a couple of suggestions on how to frame the debate. The. Act that you are amending was being driven by the physician shortage in Hawaii and competition by nonprofit hospitals.

And there is, I think, a debate to be had about whether the proposed new exempt parties would be similarly situated to the other people who are now beneficiaries of the legislation.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Okay, next we have Brigadier General Walter Ross for the Hawaii National Guard in support. Please proceed.

Oh, chair, vice chair, Members of Committee, I'm General Ross. On behalf of the Hawaii National Guard and Department of Defense, we stand in support of this and submit it to best test ceremony and we rest on that.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have Hawaii Optometric association and support. Charlotte Nakota, are you present? Okay, next we have Austin Shiloh Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii in opposition. Please proceed.

Aloha and thank you for hearing me. Austin Martin with the Libertarian Party of Hawaii.

I stand on my written testimony on this and just kind of urge that freedom rather than central planning, rather than tax carve outs, rather than overly complicating the tax code, just lowering taxes in General would be a better way to approach this than favoritism. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Martin. Next we have Ted Kepala's Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and support. And next we have Mike Nguyen, Aloha Care and support. Mike Nguyen, are you present on zoom? Oh, not present on zoom. Chair. I see you in person. It says zoom here.

So aloha Chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee, Maria Rallyohai for Aloha Care. And we stand on our written testimony in support of SB 389. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Doris Segao Matsunaga, Indivisible Hawaii and support. Are you present? Next, we have Doris Matsunaga again for North Hawaii Action Network. In support of. We have Kylie Swan in support. Kylie, are you present?

Not present. On Zoom. Chair.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Nancy Moser in support. Judith Wythe in support. Tim Hilkey hikey and support. Roger Hamada in support. Margaret Sipple in support. Kevin Hughes in support. Marcelo Aloha Lani Boydo in support. Support. Tammy Debardi in support. Youngy Overlean support. Martina Wing in support. And Leakey in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB389?

Okay. Okay. Moving. Any questions? Yeah. Okay. Senator Pavelo, please proceed.

I keep hearing that the complication for tax. For the taxation, I guess. Who do you want? Department taxation. Come on up. Whoever can answer the question. We're constantly hearing testimony about the complication of the tax code. How complicated will the tax code be if we implementing something like this?

Well, I would say by adding these new categories, who qualify for the exemption could be just a minimal change. But the Administration of it is really where it's going to be important. That is why in our testimony, we are just requesting additional time to educate the public on the change.

So just by doing it to get people to file, it shouldn't be that.

Complicated then in terms of our understanding right now, it shouldn't be a big lift to do this. It's just about educating the public. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Okay, while you're here, did you make any calculation as to how much of a tax impact?

Don't have a calculation on that yet, Chair, but we are working on it. We can get you that if you need that calculation.

Okay, so I remember talking to Director Suganuma two years ago regarding the original for primary care physicians, and that one had a $25 million potential impact. Okay. So now we're basically expanding it. So next hearing would be nice to hear. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Sing. None. Moving on. SB 877 relating to human services.

Appropriate response increase Medicaid and home services, condition on DHS obtaining maximum federal matching funds. First up, Director Yamane. Hello. Okay, I see you don't look like Director Yamane, but please proceed Meredith.

Not Director Yamane, but Meredith Nichols, Department of Human Services, standing in and we are happy to stand on our written testimony. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have DCAB, Kristine Pagano, in support. Anybody from DCAB? Okay. Next, we have Caroline Cadirao Executive Office on Aging providing comments. Next, we have Ari Suga-Nakagawa for AARP in support. AARP? Okay, moving on. Mike Nguyen, Aloha Care. Okay, you're not Mike Nguyen, but please proceed.

Maria Rallojay for Aloha Care again. And we stand in our written testimony in support of SB 877. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Elizabeth Ignacio, HMAl Hawaii Medical Association in support. Louis Erteschik, Hawaii Disability Rights center in support. Nicole Wu, Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks and support. Austin Shiloh Martin in opposition. Mr. Martin, are you present on Zoom?

Yes, ma'am. Austin Martin here with the Libertarian Party of Hawaii. I believe I have the right bill on this one. Thank you for hearing me today.

877 expands Medicaid eligibility thresholds for state funding commitments compelling taxpayers to subsidize additional enrollees through coercive wealth transfer into a program with documented high administrative costs, fraud vulnerabilities, provider reimbursement rates that restrict patient access. This expansion deepens long term fiscal obligations without corresponding revenue sources.

Further growth of this entitlement crowds out private insurance options, discourages personal responsibility, and drives premium non-subsidized residents. Recommend rejecting SB 877 and instead removing regulatory barriers to health savings account and in-state insurance competition.

A little bit of deregulation and a little bit of freedom in this area and in this industry would benefit Hawaii a lot more than additional state intervention is, which is what's led to a lot of the, the issues that we're currently trying to solve this session, anyway.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, next up we have Nash Whitten in support. Victor Ramos in opposition. Anybody else? And no written late testimony I could see. Anybody else wishing testified SB 877? Angela, please identify yourself and you have one minute. Angela.

Aloha. Angela Melody on testifying on behalf of CARES.

So with what's happening in Congress in the process of reducing funding for the SNAP food stamp programs, I think this bill is very helpful to focus on provisions of increased financial stability for middle class families and low income families and individuals that are in the demographics of disadvantaged circumstances to have home services provided with an increase in the Medicaid program funding.

So this should be the responsibility of the state. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing testifying SB 877? Questions? Okay, we have Senator Keohokalole also present. Okay. If not, we're moving on. SB 1139, relaying to Medicaid, directs DHS to adopt rules to expand Medicaid eligibility to children from birth to age 5 years old without regard to household income.

First up, we have Dr. Jack Lewin of SHPDA in support: State Health Planning and Development Agency. Okay, moving on. Director Yamane, DHS providing comments. I see. Meredith, please proceed.

Yeah. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Meredith Nichols, Department of Human Services. And we're happy to stand on our written testimony.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Executive Office on Early Learning providing comments: Yuuko Arikawa Cross. Anybody from Early Learning? Okay, moving on. We have - I see him on Zoom already. Austin Shiloh Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii, in opposition. Please proceed.

Aloha. Thank you for hearing me. Chair Aquino. I'm sorry, I might have the wrong name on that. On my.

That's okay. Please proceed.

My apologies. I'm going to read from what I wrote and add a couple thoughts. By appropriating additional funds or broadening covered services under Medicaid, SB 1139 accelerates the growth of a program that already consumes a disproportionate share of the state budget while delivering poorer health outcomes than private alternatives in multiple national studies.

Taxpayers are forced to finance this expansion under penalty of law regarding personal circumstances. Sustained increases lock in intergenerational debt and reduce incentives for innovative private solutions. I recommend defeating this measure and beginning a phase transition towards voluntary market based health care arrangements.

Everybody wants to help children and make sure that they have the access to the services that they need. So, this is very serious. And I'm not insensitive to the need in our community for services.

But I think the need and the lack of available services is the result of bad policy and the result of a government that tries too hard to centrally manage.

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. Okay, next we have Louis Erteschik testifying for Hawaii Disability Rights Center in support. Mike Nguyen, Aloha Care, in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice chair, members of the committee. Maria Rallojay for Aloha Care. We stand in our testimony support of SB 1139. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Elizabeth - Dr. Elizabeth Ignacio for Hawaii Medical Association in support. Nicole Wu, Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks in support. Kylie Swan in support. Kylie, are you present on Zoom?

Not present in Zoom, Chair.

Okay, next we have Nash Witten in support. Theresa Armbuster in opposition. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 1139? Okay. 1139? Okay. Seeing questions, members? Okay. Seeing none. Moving on. Next we have SB 787 relating to Department of Health, DOH Warmline Mental Health appropriation. First up we have Hawaii Behavioral Health Administration, Hawaii State Department of Health.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Gavin Takenaka, Adult Mental Health Division Administrator; here on behalf of the department we stand on a written testimony. I'm here for any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Catholic Charities, Hawaii, Shellie Niles in support. Louis Erteschik, Hawaii Disability Rights Center in support, Austin Shiloh Martin, Libertarian Party for Hawaii in opposition. Mr. Martin, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair. SB 787 creates and funds a government operated non-crisis warm line, duplicating services that are already provided by the private telehealth platforms, nonprofit organizations and community groups while introducing state oversight that risks patient privacy through mandatory reporting or data collection requirements. Operational costs once again will be borne by taxpayers with no opt out mechanism.

Private and voluntary initiatives offer greater flexibility, lower stigma, and innovation unencumbered by bureaucratic constraints. I recommend rejecting this bill to avoid unnecessary expansion of state involvement and personal mental health support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have William Bowles, United Self Help, in support. Next we have Kalai Kalokini. I see him here in support. Please proceed. Identify yourself.

Aloha Chair Buenaventura, Vice Chair McKelvey with Committee of Health and Human Services. My name is Kalai Kalokini. I grew up on Maui and currently I am a student studying social work at UH Manoa. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill 787.

I believe it is important to our community and it serves to bridge a gap in mental health service that does not necessarily call for emergencies such as the 1988 Hawaii Care Crisis the line provides.

As a local person from Maui, have had personal experiences with the 2023 Lahaina wildfire and it ripped a window into the state of mental health for me and many others in my community.

And I've heard of many families, families in my community suffering not only the loss of their family from the fire but from the suicides that followed.

Coupled with the well known affordability crisis, many in the state are overwhelmed enough as is and therefore the establishment of a warm line that could provide service to those who do not teeter on the verge of crisis but may still need help can make it so that they never get to that point.

It is in our culture as Kanaka and locals to look out for one another in times of need. This is one such avenue. Mahalo nui for your time Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the HHS committee.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Victor Ramos in opposition. Don Waku Kava in support. Veronica Moore in support. Anybody else wishing testify on SB 787? Members, any questions?

Quick one of Department of Health.

Department of Health, come on up.

Just a real quick one. If this bill were to fly all the way, would you be looking solely at trying to add new permanent positions or will would there be flexibility in the measure for you to contract to nonprofits and others who may be engaged in this kind of area already?

We're looking at flexibility and contracting nonprofit. There doesn't exist a current peer specialist class within DHRD at this time. So we would be worried.

I'd be worried about having to try to add fill these positions when there's so many vacancies. But thanks for clarifying that. You would have some flexibility under that. Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

Stick around. Stick around. Any other questions? Okay, big question. What's the difference between this and 988 that rolled out?

So 988 has to do with crisis services. And I heard the testimony.

Yeah. Over the Libertarian.

Yeah. Over the - and there was a question about how this duplicates services. It actually does not. Looking at aggregate data through a full year calendar year, which was in 2024, our vendor shared that 34.7% of all contacts to the Hawaii Cares line were for mild issues that could have been forwarded to a warm line.

So, as we grow and more people are aware of the 988 number and we're learning that folks still don't know. So, we're still trying to get the word out to different areas of our community as that grows. We don't want to grow and spend additional funding on a crisis service like that when we could support that at a lower cost through a warm line.

So how do they reach the warm line?

So what we'll have to do, and the model that we're looking at is setting up a specific number for the warm line, while if they were to call the crisis line, it would be - it would have to be diverted over to the warm line so that. As part of the continuum.

That's the whole idea behind 988. Right. It's to make it easy for people like 911 to be able to remember it. So I'm hoping that you folks have that capacity to use the 988 as a warm line.

And frankly, when 988 was first sold to me, it was supposed to be a warm line.

Yeah.

Yeah. People were - it was supposed to be this catch all. And I remember going to where, where it was housed here in Honolulu, where you folks are supposed to be doing the warm line. So why can't we just fund it as 988?

Why do we have to have this separate telephone number that people might end up getting lost?

So, the crisis line has a different kind of function. It responds to crisis calls. Whereas a peer specialist operated warm line would be more for more of a preventative type measure where folks can call.

And the peer specialists manning the phone lines can actually spend the time to talk story, to provide resource information or, you know, really be there empathically without having to try to get someone hooked up to services. And I apologize, I don't know the history of this. I was at the other department prior.

To the 988 implementation? But that was what was sold to us. And I remember being shown where the nonprofits were answering the phone call, supposedly, and the plan was to provide services. It was supposed to be for more than crisis. Okay.

I know the mental health field has evolved over time. It's changed since I entered the field back in 1980. So the needs have necessarily changed and you get better at it. Yeah.

And I understand. And I understand. And I understand. And the reason I'm hearing this instead of demanding that you folks put it in the budget was because, when I was in Molokai in 2024 and called 988, no one answered, which is not supposed to happen after the federal rollout. Okay. Yes, go ahead.

Senator, can you explain. So this isn't a department bill, right?

It is not.

Okay, so the - can you explain why putting a second number out into the public space and directing people to that saves money?

So out of the 34.7% of the calls, rather than having someone who is licensed or at a master's type degree level, who we're paying significantly more to take calls as such, and maybe not be able to provide the amount of time or the time to stay with the person, listen to the person for extended periods.

It helps to have sometimes a peer specialist, you know, someone who you can relate to rather than a professional to be able to talk to. Kind of like increasing or improving the social capacity of our superior system.

So, could that not...could that concern not also be addressed by just creating a protocol on the other end of the line for whoever is taking the call to forward it out to the warm line?

It could.

Rather than having 977 or a different 999?

Yeah, it could. Yes, 988 still, like you said, would be a no wrong door type line.

Right. Which to the Chair's point was what was told was, which was what was proposed by the Department of Health in 2020, when I was the Chair of the Health Committee. And it was a different number that we were required to switch over to 988 because the Federal Government was implementing the 988 protocol.

And the reason why the 988 line, after merging with the CARES line, started to differentiate between crisis calls and warm calls, from my recollection, was because the Department of Health chose to do it that way. And so I can appreciate that this is not your bill, so I'll stop here.

It just - it does seem to me like it was an internal decision to separate out the warm line. And it could potentially be an internal decision to bring it back in by putting a piece of paper on the person's desk with where you transferred a call to.

But if there's some other - right. If there's some other reason why we gotta make a new number that's going to save us money, then we should consider that as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't mean to beat you up. We don't like being -

One real quick thing, I appreciate that. I mean the way - I'm outsider, which is good agnostic, but the way it would appear to me, like when you call 911, "Is this an emergency? No. Well, let me give you the non emergency to their point that is this emergency? No. Well, we're going to transfer you to the nonprofit that has the warm line," and do the handoff, but at least you give the agent the ability to discern there may be really an emergency going on, but they're declining to declare it as said. See what I'm saying? So anyway, thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, moving on. SB 278. So, we're going to hear SB 278, SB 594, HB 963. HB 963 and SB 594 appear to be identical and SB 278 is a slimmed down version of SB 594 and HB 963, but we're going to hear it all together. Okay? And only one will pass. Okay.

I'm not gonna pass three bills on the same thing, so. Okay, first up for SB 278, we have—hold on.

Sorry. Prosecuting attorney. I see you right there. Just want to make sure. Go ahead. In support.

Yes. Thank you, Chair San Buenaventura, Vice Chair McKelvey, and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo testifying for the Department of—the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, in strong support. SB 278 is the bill that our office sponsored.

It is the narrowest version of these bills and addresses the most urgent context, which is assault. But we are broadly supportive of HB 963 and SB 594, which expand us to property offenses.

I will just note our one reservation on SB 594 is we believe that the sentencing, enhanced sentencing, should be reserved for those cases where the person is targeting elders, but what we're focused here with a strict liability provision is the scope of the harm. I also reviewed the Kauai prosecutor's testimony in opposition, prepared to address their concerns.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Rebecca Le for County of Kauai, Kauai Office of Prosecuting Attorney in opposition. Next, we have Audrey Suga Nakagawa, AARP, in support. Next, we have Austin Shiloh Martin, Libertarian Party Hawaii, in support. Please proceed.

Hello, Chair, and thank you. I think it's a good decision to hear these bills together. My—I beg your pardon on my testimonies. I might have gotten some of these mixed up with the similar content or with another bill entirely. So, just FYI, with written, written comments.

My main concern on this, I'm actually in support of strong support of the intent, qualified support of the language. I'm worried about the idea of removing state of mind requirements.

Some of the language is broad enough that it could criminalize nonviolent conduct or could erode safeguards, especially for like self defense cases and some of the weird cases that can arise. I'm also uncomfortable with the language that suggests mandatory minimums.

I really think we should preserve judicial discretion in order to reserve the severest penalties that are justly due under this circumstance to those who actually really deserve it, and I can foresee how some of this language has vagaries that could give rise to injustice down the line.

So, I would just recommend that we don't do anything that could cause a court to throw..

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. We read your testimony. Okay. Next up we have Victor Ramos in opposition. Okay. And in the next bill, with same thing. Next, the only difference is Vince Legaspi for Honolulu Police Department, on Zoom, in support. Vince Legaspi, are you present?

No present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Next we have Maui Prosecutor's Office in support. And the only other difference is Carolyn Kadirao, Office of Aging in support. Okay, we have Alan Bartolome for County of Hawaii in support. Sandie Wong in support. Come on, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Sandie Wong. I provided testimony in strong support on HB 963, HD 2. I'm sorry, I did not provide testimony in support of the other two bills, but I am in support of those bills. You all might recognize me as a lobbyist in this building.

But today, I'm here as Sandie Wong, a kapuna who was assaulted. It was a devastating experience for me. As a child who had never been slapped, never been hit, to be physically hit was devastating. I think I'm pretty fearless, but I have to tell you, it affected me for over a year. I'm still a little cautious.

And then, in my neighborhood, because we have a tight knit neighborhood, when the other seniors heard that I got assaulted, every everyone was on edge.

I was concerned when I learned the law that although I was a kupuna, I was not protected simply because they thought I didn't look like a kupuna, nor did, nor could they prove my assailant had the state of mind seeing that I'm a kupuna. As a kupuna, whether you're kupuna or not, it's a fact.

It shouldn't be arbitrary.

We understand. Thank you very much, Sandie. Okay, next up we have—who hasn't testified before or we haven't called—Veronica Moore in support. Okay, Questions? Oh, okay. Anybody else wants to testify on any of those? Come on, Angela, you have one minute.

Angela Melody Young, testifying on behalf of CARES.

And we're taught—we're talking about HB 963, SB 594, and SB 270.

So, I think the strongest statute is if SB 594 is the statute to be enacted because it removes the knowledge of age. So, that's one less thing that the prosecution will have to prove. So, this can help the prosecution because with one last factor to have to prove and just basing the evidence on witnesses or whoever witnessed a kupuna getting slapped in the face, then it increases the evidentiary strength of the prosecution's argument.

And so, yeah, I think it's easier for the prosecution to prove physical injury, right, instead of proving a state of mind or the knowledge of age from the perpetrator's mind. Yeah.

And also, having to prove state of mind has to be based on the prosecution having a strong argument that the abuser...

I think your time is up.

Thank you. Okay, anybody else wishing testify HB 963, SB 594, or SB 594 or SB, excuse me, 278. Questions, witnesses? Okay, if not, moving on. Okay, next up we have SB 277, relating to sexual offenses against minors.

Thank you.

Okay.

Increase the penalty for promoting minor-produced sexual images to a felon if the person is more than three years older than the minor, extends a probationary term for felony obscenity offenses and told the statute of limitations. First up, we have Daniel Hugo, Department of Prosecuting Attorney, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo testifying for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, in strong support of this measure.

One of the main issues that this measure addresses is sextortion cases which we are seeing much more of and specifically, cases where the minors are targeted not for any financial benefit, which we can still charge under extortion, but solely for the sexual gratification of the predator.

So, we think that these changes are important in order to protect minors in these cases. Oftentimes, they result in sexual severe psychological harm afterwards. I'm happy to answer any questions from the Committee.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Vince Legaspi, Honolulu Police Department, in support. Vince Legaspi, are you present on Zoom?

Not present in Zoom, Chair.

Okay, next, we have Maui County Prosecutor's Office in support. Austin Shiloh Martin, are you present on Zoom? Please proceed. Yes, please, please proceed.

Thank you. I am here for qualified support for SB 277 provisions utilizing exploitation and predation of minors appropriately rights violations through focused criminal sanctions. Evidentiary standards, however, must remain rigorous to avoid abuse. I recommend advancing with amendments that observe judicial discretion and prioritize direct restitutions victims over punitive.

I want be sure that this doesn't get abused and over applied the wrong way intent of this and appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Chris Cofield, Emua Alliance, in support. Victor Ramos in support. Cecilia Wang in support. Alec Marentic in support. Daisy Tu Laupua in support. Nicholas Zaire in support. Anybody else wishing to testify, SB 27? Members, any questions? Oh, and we have Senator Kanuha also present. Thank you. Any questions?

If not, short recess for decision making or can we roll? Oh, SB 595. Sorry. That's why I have staff. They remind me. SB 595, relating to powers of attorney. Establishes additional requirements to evoke or make changes relating to agents and their powers of attorney of principals diagnosed with cognitive deficits. First up, Director Yamani in support in providing comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Lisa Amador from Department of Human Services, on behalf of Director Yamani. The Department stands on our written testimony with comments and I'm available for questions if needed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. I see Chase Silvert here in opposition. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Chase Silvert. I'm with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. We'll stand in our written testimony on strong opposition. Just wanted to highlight, you know, this Bill is well intentioned. It has issues of definition, has implementation issues which we would defer to DHS on.

It directly goes against supported decision making, which we just passed last year and self-determination for our IDD community, the intellectual and developmental disabilities. It also blurs the line between power of attorney and guardianship. So, we're here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Hawaii Disability Rights Center providing comments. Lou Ertischek, please proceed. You have one minute.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator. I'm sure the bill is well intentioned, especially since it was co-sponsored by both you and Senator McKelvey, but I'm trying to figure out what problem the bill is trying to solve.

And I think, I think the fundamental problem with fallacy with the Bill is that it equates cognitive deficits with lack of capacity. Half the people who come to our office have cognitive deficits. That's really common.

We do a lot of power of attorneys, advance directives. They all got cognitive deficits so they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. But they have capacity to make the document and in order for somebody to revoke the document, they have to have, if they don't have capacity, they can't revoke it.

And so, this Bill sets up this sort of incredible bureaucracy where it's got to go to APS and there's a fourth examination, then there's a court procedure. I just think it's creating a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of trouble for a problem that doesn't necessarily exist. And that, that, so, you know, that's where I'm concerned about the Bill. I think it, I think it does more harm than good.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have James Kilger, Full Life, in opposition. Austin Shiloh Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii, in support. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair. Thank you. Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii with a libertarian perspective on this issue. What problem is this trying to solve? A major problem. A huge problem with elder abuse and professionals who take...of their trust.

Okay, Mr. Martin, you need to talk into your mic. There's something wrong with your mic.

Apologize. Can you hear me?

Before.

Can you hear me better now?

Yes. So, okay, please proceed.

Thank you. The problem this Bill is trying to solve with the plundering of estates under the front of powers of attorney every day. It's a real problem in Hawaii that...anyone really know about this. 95 add safeguards.

Fraudulent or coercive execution of powers of attorney directly protecting voluntary contractual arrangements and individual autonomy from third party abuse without imposing new mandates on legitimate private planning. These targeted deterrents strengthen property rights and personal sovereignty at minimal cost.

Mr. Martin, yeah, you're just reading from your testimony, which we have read and we understand. Thank you very much. Okay, next we have Edward Cordelia in support and Zahaba Z. Zaidov in opposition. Anybody else testifying? SB 595. Okay, you have one minute, Angela.

Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of Cares, wishing to comment. So, the power of attorney protects vulnerable individuals with disabilities that already have a harder time expressing their feelings and emotions appropriately and are limited functionally. By allowing them to appoint a trusted agent to handle financial, legal, and medical decisions—so, it acts as a proactive tool.

So, I think, you know, with the discussion of the state offices, the one office is for and the other office is against. I want to just provide a consideration for amendment is the qualified healthcare professional shall be.

The amendment could be considered that to amend it to say, the patient's primary care physician or the patient's primary mental health doctor shall perform the assessment because someone who is treating them already knows them well.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, to help...

Thank you very much.

...Reduce barriers for the vulnerable population and to strengthen the law. Thank you.

Thank you. Are we ready for decision making? I only have 13 minutes. Oh, question. Sorry.

Oh, sorry. I don't remember his name—the guy with the red lanyard.

Okay, Chase, come on up.

I would say black shirt, but we...I'd just like little bit clarification because I understand what are you saying because if we, President, already have a capacity issue and then, they have a trust, but they cannot revoke it because of their capacity. Is that what you're saying?

No. So, I think if I'm understanding the question correctly and from some of the conversation, if the bill is intended to kind of take somebody who had capacity signs up for a power of attorney, and then something happens—old age, medical condition, whatever—and they lose capacity, that seems to be what this bill targets.

But the problem is with the definitions in the bill, it's targeting the entire intellectual and developmental disability community. And these are people born this way. As Lou mentioned, there's a lot of layers to their capacity and it's not a one size fits all. So, just because you have a—and I apologize for not remembering the exact term in the Bill, but a cognitive deficit of some kind, doesn't mean your capacity is inherently limited.

So, that's, that's kind of what we're trying to get at.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Okay.

Okay. It's like autism being different spectrum, right?

Yeah.

Okay. Okay. I don't want to go on recess. Are you ready for decision making? Okay. Thank you very much. So first up, SB 768. Chair's recommendation is to adopt though tax policy, propose amendments, make the tax credit non refundable, make it an effective date of 2026, but also add in a defective date of 2050.

Are you going to aggregate the cap?

Yes. Aggregate the cap to $500 at max. Okay. Any other questions? Say none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments and adopting the amendments of Dotec's $500 aggregate cap plus the new dates. [Roll call]. Your recommendation is adopted, Chair.

Okay. Chair's recommendation for SB 389. I take into account what Tax Foundation said because it was this body that passed the prior GE tax exemption. So we are going to be passing it with amendments. We're going to substitute the APRN. We're going to substitute all the NAIC providers with just APRNs involved in primary care.

Because we have a huge primary care shortage here and this is one of the levers we could use to help support the primary care. We're also going to accept SMA proposed recommendations to amend 237-24.3 to refer to the session law, whatever the SMA's proposed amendment is.

And we are going to have a have the Department of Taxation's proposed effective date of January 1, 2027, but also a defective date of 2050 to allow for further conversations. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Okay.

Recommendation is to pass with amendments to substitute APRNs and to amend the section 237.24.3. [Roll call].

Recommendation is adopted, Chair.

Okay, so for SB 877, Chair's recommendation is to blank out the appropriation, change the effective date to 2050, and note in the committee report DHS's request of 6.7 million. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Recommendations in Senate Draft 1, pass a blank appropriation effective date of 2030 and DHS 6.7 million in the committee report. [Roll call]. Recommendation is adopted.

So for SB 1139, Chair's recommendation is to pass it but blank with amendments to blank out the appropriation, change the effective date to a defective date of 2050. Thank you. Any or - 20...yeah, 2050. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair with the vote.

Okay. Recommendation is the Senate Draft 1 to pass the blank appropriation effective date of 2050. [Roll call]. If not, your recommendation is adopted.

So for SB 787, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. We're going to blank out the appropriation, update the effective date. We're just going to have a defective date of 2050. And note in the committee report, the amount of $570,137 for 2026-2027 fiscal year and an implementation date of July 1, 2026. Any comments, questions concerns? Seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay. Recommendation of Senate Draft 1 bank appropriation amount and new adjusted dates. [Roll call]. Seeing none. Your recommendation has been adopted.

So for SB 278 - SB594, Chair is going to defer that in lieu of HB 963; Chair's recommendation is to pass HB 960 with amendments. We are going to amend the age from 60 to 70. And the reason for that is because that is a social security full retirement age.

If we put in a different amount, it may be stuck invalid as being vague and ambiguous because there is nothing in testimony as to showing why the age of 60 is chosen.

We're going to delete sections three through seven as well as defecting the effective date and any technical 2050 and any technical, non substantive amendments for clarity and consistency. Any comments, questions, or concerns?

I have a comment. Thank you for the amendments Chair and I recognize the defective date and that my concern probably is the judiciary issue, but the Kauai County prosecutor's comments around, you know, complex cases with older adults interacting with each other, especially spouses when they're elderly and, may or may not involve exploitation, is concerning.

So, I'm going to go WR noting that, you know, from a healthcare standpoint this is elder....elder abuse is really bad and this is a good bill. So, thank you for your changes.

Any other comments?

Yeah, no. I'm going to probably do reservations too, although I rarely really like the amendments made and moves the bill forward with the concern. But for right now, reflecting upon the previous comments, I'm going to go with reservations for now.

Okay. And thank you very much.

It's a work in progress.

Yes, it's a work in progress. And Honolulu prosecutor knows that. When I was judiciary member, I've always voted against this bill because I always believe in the idea of the difference between the criminal law and civil law is the men's rate of requirement, which this one removes and what provides.

But I'm also concerned about the assaults. Okay. On elders. So, I believe by the age of 70 some some type of infirmity is probably can be seen. So, that removes the bar.

And I do want to note that just because I do want to take exception to prior testifier that nothing happens to somebody who assaults because the reality is something does happen. It's just that this increases the penalty, okay, for an assault for an age 70. But thank you very much. And we're gonna move on SB 59 -

We're gonna take the vote.

Take the vote.

Yeah. Now we're gonna do the vote. Okay. Yes. All right. We're gonna do the vote.

All right. Recommendation of the Chair is to move 963 HD 2 as a Senate Draft 1 to pass an amend to age 70 social security standard; delete sections 3 through 7 technical, non substantive, and defective effective date. [Roll call].

Your recommendation passes.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So for SB 277 there's recommendation on that one is it just passed with technical and non-substantive amendments. Any comments, questions, concerns? Offenses against minors offenses. 277.

277...okay.

Deferred 594 and -

Go for it as is. Yeah.

No with technical amendments.

Got it. Okay.

Technical amendments.

Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

Okay.

Okay. 277: recommendation Senator Draft 1, technical non-substance amendments; [Roll call]. Seeing none. Measures been adopted.

And we are going to defer the last bill, which is SB 595. We notice, we noted that we passed the Support Decision Making Act. So we're going to make sure that that gets followed through. Thank you very much. And we are adjourned. Thank you, folks.