Senate Standing Committee on Labor and Technology

Great afternoon, everyone. Happy Aloha Friday. We've made it. This is the Labor and Technology 3pm agenda. Today is January 30, 2026 and we are in Conference Room 225. This hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel. Before we begin, just a few housekeeping announcements in the unlikely case of technical failures.

This meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on February 2, 2026 at 3pm. For all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony. If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute.

The content, including the hearing notice, copy of the measures and testimony can be found on the Legislature's website. And if time permits, decision making will occur after we hear from all those offering testimony. First up on our agenda is Senate Bill 2245. This is relating to revolving door restrictions for state employees.

Prohibits new state employees from taking official action on matters they worked on before state employment. Prohibits former permanent employees of the Office of the Governor and Office of Lieutenant Governor from representing persons or businesses for a period of 12 months after termination from state employment. First up on our list, Director of the Hawaii State Ethics Commission, Robert D. Harris. Aloha and welcome.

Happy Aloha Friday, Chair, Vice Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Just briefly for those who are watching, this bill attempts to address the concern about the revolving door of people coming into government and exiting government, particularly from private industry. However, this bill tries to strike a very measured approach in the middle.

We don't want to lose the opportunity for people coming from industry who have substantive experience from coming into state service. So it really tries to target matters that they specifically worked on. So if they have general experience, general knowledge, that is allowed to come in.

But specific matters, there's a cooling off period to say, if you worked on that contract, for example, and you come into state service, we want to have a cooling off period before you start also representing that. And then the idea is really to prohibit the situation where the public may view that as potentially an undue or a biased viewpoint or not really representing the state. Happy to answer any questions. Hope that you can move this bill forward.

And your position on the measure?

Thank you. We are in strong support.

Okay. Thank you so much, Director Harris. Judith Mills-Wong for Women Voters of Hawaii in support. That completes our list of testifiers for Senate Bill 2245. Anyone else in the audience or on Zoom that wishes to testify in this measure? Okay. If not, Member, Vice Chair, any question? Okay.

Director, I have a question for you, if you don't mind coming back. This bill would cover two years, right? Correct. Okay. And it just would only apply to Governor and Lieutenant Governor's Offices and the staff positions as stated on page six, line nine to 12?

So that is actually an update to the existing post-employment restriction. So there is currently a post-employment restriction which prohibits certain key designated people for 12 months. We suspect it was probably an oversight to not include the permanent positions from the Governor, Lieutenant Governor's Office.

So this would include the chief of staff, policy, folks of substantial positions of power who may have unique relationships. And the idea is to essentially let that cool off before they're able to get involved for pay on behalf of a client. So I think this is essentially closing a loophole that probably was inadvertent previously.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move on to our next item on our agenda, Senate Bill 99. This is relating to government. Allows a retirent to be employed... Oh, okay. Got it. Thank you.

Allows a retirent to be employed without re-enrollment in the Employee's Retirement System and without loss or interruption of retirement benefits if the retirent is employed as a school resource officer or investigator in positions identified by the Department of Education or the Department of the Attorney General, respectively, as a labor shortage or difficult to fill positions subject to certain conditions.

Requires the Director of Human Resources of the appropriate state jurisdiction or the Human Resources Management Chief Executive of each county to include in their annual reports to the Legislature details on the employment of retirents as school resource officers or investigators. First up on our list on Zoom, we have Diane Wong or Jenny Nakamoto from Attorney Generals. Oh, in person. Aloha. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Jenny Nakamoto. I am a Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii. The department's position remains that we are in support of the portion of the bill relating to investigators identified by the department as labor shortage or difficult to fill. And we also provided comments regarding the portion of the bill addressing the school resource officers. Thank you.

We have Kalbert Young from ERS.

Good afternoon, Chair.

Aloha, and congratulations on your new role.

Thank you very much, Senator. Very happy to be here. This bill has not been reviewed for position from the Employee Retirement System Board of Trustees. However, for the administration, we would... We are supportive and appreciative of the intent, and we've offered some comments.

There is one proposed or recommended suggested amendment that could be helped on the bill on the second page of our testimony related to Section 2. It's on page three, lines five through seven. It will, we think, will help the overall application of the bill. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. We also have Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, in support. Mike Lambert from the Department of Law Enforcement in support. And Osa Tui from Hawaii State Teachers Association in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for SB 99. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this matter? If not, questions? I have a question for the Attorney General.

Deputy Attorney General. So I don't know if you had an opportunity to review the testimony from the Department of Law Enforcement and what was just shared with ERS. Do you folks have any concerns with their proposals?

I apologize, I did not get a chance to review their testimony. But I can get back to you if you'd like later.

Okay. Okay, that'd be great. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay. If no further questions, we'll move on. Our next item is Senate Bill 2304, relating to identity theft. Includes fraudulent impersonation or false depiction through artificial intelligence or materially deceptive media in offenses of identity theft. In person, Mark Tom, Deputy Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the department. The department provides just the following comments for Senate Bill 20...

If you can just speak into the mic. Sorry. Thank you.

For 2304. This bill appears to be aimed at strengthening the offense of identity theft, which is already covered by the current statute. So although well intentioned, this bill would create various obstacles for prosecution.

Such as creating additional elements that might need to be proven that's not currently required at this time covered by the identity theft statute. Thus, the department respectfully just request the committee just defer this. Again, although well intentioned, our statute is broad enough to cover the offenses that are anticipated through this bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Deputy Attorney General Tom. We have Andrew Martin from Prosecuting Attorney from the County of Maui offering written comments in support. Daniel Hugo, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. We're testifying in respectful opposition of this bill. We do sympathize with the aims of this bill. And of course, if somebody is using AI or deepfake technology to commit crimes, we will vigorously prosecute those cases. However, one of our concerns that we raise here are potential First Amendment issues in how materially deceptive media is defined.

First Amendment issues are usually something that we look for first because there doesn't need to be an act of crime that's being prosecuted. If it's found to be facially invalid, a challenge can be brought. We also have some concerns with complicating the state of mind for identity theft. I'm available to answer questions from the committee.

Okay, thank you so much, Mr. Hugo. On Zoom, we have Vince Legaspi, Captain, Honolulu Police Department.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Oh, not present. Okay, thank you. And then that was offering testimony in support. Then we have Glen Kagamida and Jamie M. Logan, both in support. That completes our registered list of testifiers for SB 2304.

Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure? If not, questions? Okay, we'll move on. Our next item is Senate Bill 2115. This is relating to collective bargaining. Amends the collective bargaining negotiation procedure on the repricing of classes within a bargaining unit for public employees.

Establishes an impasse procedure to be applied when an employer fails to initiate the negotiation or the parties fail to reach an agreement with certain time frames. Repeals existing law that requires a different impasse procedure to apply in those situations. Sunsets on 6-30-2029. First up, we have on this measure is Director Hashimoto. After that, followed by Scott Collins from HGEA. Aloha and welcome.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. DHRD is opposed to SB 2115, which amends Section 8999 to once again alter the impasse procedure for negotiated repricing of classes. The proposed amendments place repricing decisions in the hands of a single untrained arbitrator who's not qualified to make those determinations.

It also creates unrealistic impasse deadlines and imposes tremendous burden on management to defend repricing decisions. Our concerns with this measure are similar to those that we raised two years ago with regard to HB 1640, which include that repricing requires considerable technical analysis and training in order to do it correctly, and those that are making these decisions do not have that training or experience in the factors that determine pricing.

Inequitable arbitration decisions would undermine DHRD's ability to maintain impartial, unbiased, and consistent classification and pay systems and undermine our requirement for equal pay for equal work. We offer amended language and suggest that the committee consider placing these decisions with the Merit Appeals Board, who is, in fact, trained.

Thank you. And we do have your written testimony. Thank you. Nola Miyasaki, Director from the Department of Human Resources for the City and County of Honolulu, in opposition. Osa Tui, President of HSTA, in support. Scott Collins or Nui Sabas.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nui Sabas for HGEA. We're in strong support of this measure. In 2024, the Legislature passed a repricing process that established a process where the exclusive representative and employer can negotiate the repricing of position government.

This was primarily primarily due to the employer's inability to increase position pay to a competitive rate. What we're looking at here is to amend the interest, the impasse procedure to an arbitration process that is streamlined and more well intended for repricing positions. We're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much. Kamakana Kaimuloa from UPW.

Aloha Friday, Chair, Vice Chair. Kamakana Kaimuloa, Government Affairs Manager for UPW. You have our written testimony in strong support. I won't go through it. But we ultimately we believe that the proposed amendments better reflect the spirit and intent of the the law as it was intended passed back in 2024.

Okay, thank you. We also have Alec Marentic in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 2115. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure. If not, any questions? I have a question for HGEA. I don't know if you had an opportunity to review the testimony from DHRD. One of their suggestions was to put it to the Merit Appeals Board, MAB. Does HGEA have any thoughts or feedback on that?

Yeah, Chair, we're opposed to that suggestion. MAB is an employer controlled board, and at least it's my understanding that they are facing a considerable backlog. So that might work against kind of our intention in supporting this bill.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Sabas. Okay, with that, we'll move on. Senate Bill 1036. This is relating to consumer protection. This codifies net neutrality principles by prohibiting fix in mobile Internet service providers that provide broadband Internet access service from engaging in certain practices concerning the treatment of Internet traffic.

Among other things, prohibits Internet service providers from blocking Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, engaging in paid prioritization or zero-rating Internet traffic in exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise. First up on our list of registered testifiers is Rebecca Lieberman from Charter Communications, in opposition. Is she on Zoom, IT?

Not present in Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. We have Jeannine Souki from Hawaiian Telcom, offering comments on Zoom.

Not present in Zoom, Chair.

Okay. And then we also have Sean Taketa McLaughlin, in support on Zoom. Aloha, and welcome.

Aloha. Thank you very much for this opportunity to share thoughts. I really did want to read my testimony back to you, so thanks for reminding me not to do that. I hope you do take a look at it, though, because in every one of those five categories described, I can show you real-world harms that are caused by a lack of net neutrality.

In response to a couple quick things I noted in-- well, first thing, in Charter's testimony, they refer to Governor Ige's executive order to this same effect. I'm not sure the reading is correct, so I'd be interested in your thoughts or evaluation of that critique. In any case, an executive order does not have the same force as legislation, which we hope you will enact.

Under Hawaiian Telcom's testimony, they used the federal restrictions on the federal funding as a rationale for the state to defer taking action, and I guess my comment on that is, the whole reason the state needs to take action is that the feds have dropped the ball and refused to protect Hawaii consumers.

Thank you so much, Mr. McLaughlin.

Thank you.

We do have your testimony. Thank you. Okay, that completes our registered list of testifiers. We also had Amy Asselbaye from the Honolulu City-- the City and County of Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization, in support. Anyone else that wishes to testify in SB 1036? If not, questions?

I have a question for-- I do see someone from the Broadband Office. Chung, if you could come forward, please. I know you folks didn't have comments on this. Do you feel that this measure is necessary or have you seen anything that's been happening which would pause for us to feel like we need legislation like this?

Chair, Vice Chair, thank you. Chung Cheng with the Hawaii Broadband Office. We did an evaluation, and sorry; we didn't submit a testimony because we just wanted to monitor it.

Sure.

But, you know, the foundational question is, what's broken in Hawaii for us to fix? We just don't feel that there's anything broken and we don't see a problem, net neutrality problem in Hawaii.

And as you've read those testimonies, it may affect our federal funding because NTIA National Telecommunications Office has indicated that you cannot subject BEAD funding to net neutrality, affordability, or even AI, so it could be problematic. So if this committee does pass this bill out, you have to put an exemption for BEAD. So, but fundamental question is, is something broken for us to pass this law? Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? If not, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move on to our next item on our agenda, which is Senate Bill 1163. This is relating to privacy—privacy? Yep.

Prohibits the sale of geolocation information and Internet browser information without consent, prohibits the sale of data collected through eavesdropping or through an application operating in the background of a device that uses this device—that uses the device's microphone. First up on our list of registered testifiers from the Attorney General's Office—I'm sorry.

From DCCA Consumer Protection is Rajee Tolentino. I hope I pronounced your first name correct. Rajee, I'm sorry. Aloha. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair Rajee Tolentin, on behalf of the Office of Consumer Protection. OCP supports the intent of this Bill and offers comments. Protecting consumers personal data such as geolocation and browsing history is very important. The unregulated sale of disinformation poses real risk to privacy and safety.

The Federal Trade Commission highlighted consumer harms in its enforcement against a data broker selling geolocation information that could be used to track an individual's proximity to an enforcing clinic. OCP agrees that stronger safeguards are needed. However, these protections will be more effective as part of a comprehensive data privacy law than a standalone prohibition.

19 states have already passed and adopted comprehensive data privacy laws that set uniform standards on how personal data is collected, used, and sold and when and how consumers can opt out of collection and sale of their data. These laws address sensitive data like geolocation while providing clarity for consumers, businesses, and enforcement agencies.

By contrast, piecemeal, fragmented, or is, or is outdated and harder to enforce.

Thank you. Next up, we have Daniel Hugo from Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. We're testifying in support of this Bill with a recommended amendment. We do recognize that there are public safety and indeed, even national security dangers that can arise from unlicensed data brokerage activity.

We are requesting, however, an amendment for cases where we are working with private companies with this sort of data in legitimate law enforcement investigations. And I can give some examples of those if the Committee would be interested. But we do recognize that there is a danger from that.

It's ironic that in my work as a prosecutor, if I work with this information, I have to get a warrant. It's audited. There's all sorts of regulations. If I set up a private business tomorrow, I could just buy this stuff. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hugo. We also have, on Zoom, Janine Suki from Hawaiian Telcom. Aloha and welcome.

All right. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chairs, and members of the Committee. My name is Janine Suki. I'm here for Hawaiian Telecom, and I will stand on our comments. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. That completes the list of registered testifiers. I note that Adam Wadsworth for Association of National Advertisers opposes this measure. Andrew Kingman, State Privacy Security Coalition, in opposition. VA McClintock in support. And in opposition, Robert Boykin from TechNec and Andrew Kingman from State Privacy and Security. Oh, I said his name before.

That's here twice. In opposition. That completes our list of testifiers for Senate Bill 1163. Anyone else that wishes to testify in this measure? If not, questions? I have a question for Mr. Hugo from Prosecuting Attorney. So, I know you had—you're in support, but you had a recommended amendment.

So, would your, if we were to—if the Committee decided to move this Bill forward and add an amendment where it would exempt for lawful investigation by the police, would that be sufficient or do you have, like, a suggested language?

Yeah, if, if it were lawful investigations by law enforcement.

By law enforcement. Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. And that should be sufficient?

That should be sufficient, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. And then, we'll move on to our last item on our agenda, which is Senate Bill 2076. This is relating to publicity rights. Protects a person's right to, to publicity from artificial intelligence deep fakes. First on our list is Marisha Palma Elmore. Did I say that correct?

Yes, you did. Sure did.

Aloha and welcome.

Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you so much. Real quick, I don't want to read through my whole testimony standing on that, but I also just wanted to thank you, thank this, you know, both of you in the body for always thinking about not just our actors, but really regular folks who could be affected by this.

And the amendment to our right of publicity statute will go, you know, will help to protect not only our members, but regular citizens. And I also wanted to point out the recording industry of America's testimony, and we do support those amendments, too, in case you were going to ask later. We support those amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have Jessica Richard from Recording Industry of Association of America, offering comments. Lisa Romano in support and Shereen Bales in person. Shereen? In support. That concludes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 2076. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure? Okay.

If not, we're going to recess so we can get quorum to vote. Recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

We're reconvening our 3:00 PM Labor and Technology agenda for Friday, January 30th, 2026. We're in Conference Room 225. We have now our quorum that we can vote.

So, we are now moving into decision making on our measures on today's agenda. First off is Senate Bill 2245. This is relating to revolving door restrictions for state employees. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you so much, Vice Chair. Our next item is Senate Bill 99. This is relating to government. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're gonna accept the State Attorney General's proposed amendments on the second portion of their testimony, as it relates to school resource officers. And we're also going to—we're also going to accept ERS's proposed amendments, as contained in their testimony.

We're also going to accept the State Department of Law Enforcement's proposed amendments in their testimony and then any technical amendments. And then we're going to change the effective date to January 1st, 2077. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you, Vice Chair Lamosao. Next up is Senate Bill 2304. This is relating to identity theft. Chair's recommendation is to defer. Our next item on our agenda is Senate Bill 2115. This is related to collective bargaining.

Chair's going to recommend that we defer decision making to our deferred hearing notice agenda on Wednesday, February 4th, 2026, at 3:00 PM. Is that correct? Okay. Next up is Senate Bill 1036. This is relating to consumer protection. Chair's recommendation is to defer. Oh, room number, sorry. For the previous Measure, Senate Bill 2115, we're deferring our decision making to our deferred hearing notice agenda on Wednesday, February 4th, 2026, at 3:00 PM in room 225.

Is that correct? And then we just talked about Senate Bill 1036. Chair's recommendation is to defer. Move on to our next item, which is Senate Bill 1163. This is relating to privacy.

Chair is going to recommend that we pass with amendments. We're going to accept the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney's proposed amendments with making an exception for—I have it here.

I wrote it down somewhere. Okay, I got it here. Okay. So, Chair's gonna recommend for Senate Bill 1163, we're gonna pass with amendments.

We're gonna accept Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney's proposed amendments with what we're going to do there is we're going to make an exemption for lawful investigation by law enforcement, and then, we're going to accept Hawaiian Telecom's proposal amendments in their testimony. And we're going to change the effective date to January 1st, 2077. Any further discussion?

If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much, Vice Chair. And our last item on our agenda is Senate Bill 2076. This is relating to publicity rights. Chair is going to recommend that we pass with amendments. We're going to accept the Recording Industry Association of America—America's—proposed amendments and their testimony.

We're also going to change references of artificial intelligence deepfake to digital replica throughout the Bill. And then, we're going to change the effective date to January 1st, 2077. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. And I'd also like to thank my staff, Taylor, Kayla, Jan, Megan, and SMA and all the members for being here on a Friday. We have a lot of work next week, so enjoy your weekend. This concludes our agenda for today. We are adjourned.