House Standing Committee on Economic Development & Technology

Okay. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Committee on Economic Development and Technology. Today is Friday, February 6, 2026. It's 8:30. We're in Conference Room 423 at City Capital and my name is Ikaika Hussey. I'm the Vice chair of the Committee. We have this morning Sherry Iligan and Representative Gideon. Let's see.

Because morning hearings must adjourn prior to the floor session, which is at noon, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify. In that event, please know that your written testimony will be considered by the Committee. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify.

And after your testimony is complete, the Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use that chat only for technical issues. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits.

Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images.

Please refrain from using profanity or any uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. Okay, we're now going to open testimony for House Bill 1838 relating to visas. Up first we have Jack Lewin from State Health Planning and Development Agency.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair Jack Lewin, Administrator of SHPDA, also a Member of the Coalition on Immigrant Rights. We believe this is. This. This bill is a necessary one in terms of the UNT visas to come be in compliance with federal law, but also to protect those who have been victims of crime in the past.

Stand on the testimony and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Liza Ryan Gill, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Thank you. On Zoom, we have Michael Goldie Jr. From Pride at Work, Hawaii. Michael. Okay, we're going to circle back to Michael. Here we have Christina Sablon from the Legal Clinic.

Good morning, Chair Ilagan, Vice Chair Hussey and Members of the Committee. My name is Tina Sablan. Here on behalf of the Legal Clinic and our Board President, Amy Agbayani. TLC stands on its written testimony and strong support of House Bill 1838.

U and T visas are federal protections designed to help non citizen survivors of serious crime or trafficking safely report crimes and assist law enforcement without fear of immigration consequences. When survivors feel safe coming forward. Abusers are more likely to be held accountable and future harm can be prevented. Currently, however, certification practices across Hawaii are inconsistent.

Some agencies have internal policies in place, like the Department of Law Enforcement in Maui Police Department. Others do not. We've seen eligible survivors wait many months for certification or get no response at all simply because there are no standardized timelines or policies or because the agencies do not understand the requirements for certification and neet training.

These delays do not serve public safety. House Bill 1838 creates fair, consistent, and transparent statewide standards for certification. It requires written policies, designated certifying officials, and reasonable response timelines. It provides training, and it will help support community safety and ensure survivors are treated equitably across counties and agencies. Mahalo for your support.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Angelina Mercado from the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Aloha, Chair, Vice chair, Committee Members. I'm Angelina Mercado, Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And we represent 20 Member programs who serve survivors of domestic violence that many of whom are actually trying to get UNT visas. And so we want to point out. We want to stand on our written testimony.

I want to point out to the Committee why this is so important. There are actually federal caps on how many visas can be issued in any fiscal year. So U visas are subject to a 10,000 petition cap, and then T visas are 5,000.

The more we delay the process at our state level, the less likely our survivors are actually able to have access to these visas and may have to be deferred and put on waiting list. And the waiting period for U visas averages about 5 years and T visas about 3 years.

So this is not just a delay in justice, but this is a delay in safety. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Manny Fernandez, ACLU.

Thank you very much. Angela Young from CARESis on Zoom. I believe.

She's here. Let me. Sorry.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES. A strong favor of immigration rights. Yeah. So to protect the victims so that they can gain their immigration status as they survive in the United States. Which. Is an important right. And also victims are.

Or victims should also, you know, have the right to settle in a new country, get married, get documents, and to gain citizenship status. So thank you so much. Okay, bye.

Thank you, Angela. Okay, up next, we have Youngi Overly support. Thank you. Thanks very much. Okay. Julia Pinkerton is on Zoom, I believe.

Hello. Yes. Aloha. ECD Committee Chairs, Senators. oh, Ilagan and Hussey and ACD Committee Members Holt, Tam, Templo, Yamashita and Gereon. I'm Julia Pinkerton, a social work and psychology student at UH Manoa, and I would like to voice my enthusiastic support for HB 1838 related to visas.

Hawaii has long been home to countless immigrants who have built integral parts of our social fabric and want to support their neighbors. Immigrants in our communities want to help keep us safe and report criminals who harm our people, but are hindered by the threat of being torn away from their homes, their friends and their families.

The UNT visas would enable immigrants to stand with us against crime without fear of reprisals from the very law enforcement they are assisting.

As things stand, violent criminals can easily weaponize immigrants fears of deportation and separation from their families to coerce them to stay silent and trapped with abusers who are free to continue harming them, their families and their neighbors. Furthermore, as our neighbors, immigrants have a place in our communities and our hearts.

How can we abandon the families growing alongside ours who share their joys with us but are terrified that if they lean on us as we do them that we will only cast them aside? What kind of neighbors do we want to be to people who are trying to be such good neighbors to us?

For all of these reasons, I enthusiastically support HB 1838 relating to visas, and I ask you to do the same. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you very much. All told, we have 103 testimonies in support, one in opposition. Would anyone else like to testify in person or on Zoom, please? Thank you very much. Anybody else? Are there any questions from our Committee? In that case, we're going to move on to our next bill, HB 1870.

For this bill, we have 142 in support and one in opposition. We're going to start with Stacy Aldrich from the Hawaii State Public Library System. I'm sorry, I don't know if Stacy's available. Let's move on to James Barros from the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. How about Deborah halbert, university of hawaii? Thank you.

Ed Noe from the Hawaii State Public Charter School Commission.

Morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ed Noe Executive Director, Public Charter School Commission. Our only one comment is that because the charter schools are independently governed by their governing boards and so that implementation would be at the school level, that we could add that it would apply to each charter school. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Superintendent Hayashi from the Department of Education.

Morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Sean Tajima. Assistant Superintendent for the Department of Education, the safety of our students is of utmost importance and hence we rolled out guidance to the field in March of 2025 to address all of these issues. So the Department stands on his written testimony which provides comments on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Amy Wake, Wesleyan United Methodist Church. Paige, I'm sorry. Liza Gill, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, mahalo for hearing this bill. This is similar to HB440 that we put forward last session. This comes from the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant rights represents about 30 immigrant serving and led organizations across the Paina. And this was the priority that came out of our members.

I think one thing that folks are most concerned about is, and one of the reasons why we didn't move forward with this bill last session is that we had not seen a substantive change in the way the Department of Homeland Security was approaching what were formerly considered sensitive locations.

So just to remind the Committee, Department of Homeland Security, this legislation is actually weaker than their own policy that they used to hold for about 20 years that they, that they abandoned in January of 2025.

And one of the reasons why we, why we hope to see this move forward is that we just want to collaborate with our state agencies, especially those that provide critical services for all residents of Hawaii, that whether that is education, health care services, their access to justice, all of these areas, access to knowledge through the libraries, and make sure that all of those individuals and staff are not burdened with having to understand the very complex challenges of immigration law.

We shouldn't have our nurses and our teachers being the ones who have to understand somebody's immigration status and manage that. So we just hope that we can have standardized protocols. I will remind the Committee that in the last 10 days we have seen substantive action on this in multiple states.

So we have seen New York, Illinois, California, Maryland, Colorado, all take action on this specific type of legislation. And we are excited to continue to work with the Attorney General's office and state agency heads to make sure that this is something that fits everybody.

Thank you. Thanks very much. Michael Golio Jr. Private Work, Hawaii on Zoom, not present okay. Manny Fernandez, ACLU.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Mandy Fernandez, on behalf of ACLU of Hawaii, we strongly support this measure. All residents, regardless of status, should be able to access critical services, education, go to the doctor, go to work without fear of retribution from the Federal Government. We need to protect our safe spaces.

Thank you so much. And I strongly, I strongly urge you to pass this measure this morning.

Thank you okay? Kelsey Mapa. I'm sorry. Joy Badwa. Excuse me. On Zoom.

Hello. Good morning. Yes, I stand by Richard's testimony. As a product of Hawaii's public school. It's important to protect our children as. Well as folks who access essential services in our community. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And then we have Kristen Aiona on Zoom as well.

Hi. Good morning. Can everyone hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Kristen Aiona. I'm an educator, school counselor, parent of children in Hawaii public schools, and an MSW student at UH Manoa. I'm here today to Support House Bill 1870, and I just want to share a little bit about why this bill matters.

From the perspective of adolescent safety and access to care. For many teenagers, schools are already overwhelming. Adolescence is a time of intense self doubt, identity formation, and emotional vulnerability. Even in the best circumstances, some students struggle to navigate hallways, classrooms, and social spaces. Some of these students are multilingual learners.

Some come from families that already feel marginalized or closely watched. When young people live with constant uncertainty or fear, it shows up in their attendance, their mental health, and their willingness to engage in school.

Allowing the possibility of untapped civil immigration enforcement at or near schools would add another layer of fear to an environment that should feel safe. I'm testifying in support of HB 1870 because the adolescents I work with deserve protection. Many of the young people I work with may not have a voice in this process.

I hope you're hearing my voice. Okay, so I'm here to advocate for them. Mahalo. So much for the opportunity to testify today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Would anyone else like to testify in person or on Zoom?

I'd like to testify, please.

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess Angela first and then yourself. Excuse me. Angela.

Angela. Oh, thank you. Chair and Committee Angela Melody Young CARES in strong favor of the proposed legislation. So key provisions is to assist with protected locations for those that might need access to schools, mental health facilities, social service agencies, shelters, and sanctuaries.

So many of the Chinese American communities that I work with and I get to hear hear stories from such as, for example, from our congregations on Oahu. Many of them seek political asylum status here in the United States as they escape from China.

And so while China is a great country, it does provide a false sense of security under the dictatorship of the current government. And they cannot freely worship God in China. China.

And so they escape to the United States, and many of the children have to go to School and the church provides a character testimony to protect them as refugees in sanctuary. So this is very important and I'm a big fan of immigration rights to make these schools and facilities available for comprehensive immigration rights policy. Thank you.

Thank you, Angela. Okay, anyone else? I'm sorry. Go on. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. We have all told 142 testimonies in support, one in opposition with five with comments. Would anyone from our Committee offer any questions? Okay, thank you very much. Let's move to HB2445 relating to student safety. Superintendent Hayashi, Boards Representative from the doe.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee Sean Tajima, Assistant Superintendent, Department of Education Again, the safety of our students is of utmost importance. Hence the DOE rolled out guidance to the field on how to address law enforce any law enforcement coming onto campus. So the Department stands on its written testimony which provides comments on this measure.

Thank you.

Thanks. Liza Gill.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, we just want to thank Representative Templo for putting this bill forward and trying to clarify and make sure.

Again, since we have seen a shift in the way the Department of Homeland Security is now operating and they are entering on school campuses now across the country, and since this is a federal agency and their protocols then become nationwide, we just feel that it's important that we have urgency to make sure that all of our staff at the Department of Education, especially those who are front facing, are adequately trained and understand the difference between an administrative warrant, a judicial warrant and have the proper support from the doe.

So that if there is an operation wherein Department of Homeland Security comes onto a school campus, you know, we can't stop that if they have a judicial warrant. But if they are coming on campus, we should do our utmost to make sure that it doesn't disrupt all the rest of the students there and traumatize them.

So it's best if we have a policy if that is going to happen. Especially since we see a dramatic escalation and the funding for Department of Homeland Security has now been increased by almost tenfold. We expect to see more of these operations.

We should know exactly how they should happen so that we can harm as few children as possible.

Thank you. Michael Golio Jr. Okay. Joy Badua on Zoom.

Oh, sorry. Excuse me.

Hello. I submit my written testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you, Joy. Chris Corrales on Zoom. Okay, move on then to Mia. I'm sorry. Okay, Chris, you have to unmute.

How about we move on to the next person?

Are you able to hear me? Okay, go ahead. Sorry. I'm at school. Chair Ilagan, Vice Chair Hussey and Members of the Economic Development and Technology Committee. My name is Chris Eliseo Corrales and I'm a student at James Kimmel High School before you in strong support of House Bill 2445.

And I was one of the over 165 students that attended the secondary student conference earlier this week. We all advocated for this bill very strongly. I'm a proud family member of immigrants and a third generation Mexican American citizen. My grandparents immigrated in search of the American dream.

And even as a citizen, I fear for the safety of myself and my peers at school. The stories we see in the news aren't just headlines. They're a terrifying reality for students across the nation. And schools are reporting about 20 to 50% of their students missing school and fear of being separated from their family.

So I don't want that for people from my school. So I think the urgency of this bill cannot be overstated. And I think especially with the 2025 Department of Homeland Security removing the protected status from schools and hospitals, we cannot afford to wait for a tragedy to occur on our islands before we act.

And I think this bill establishes a necessary emergency response framework. And I think at the especially important aspect of this Bill is that it does not impede on legal immigration enforcement, only that that does not provide the proper warrant. And I think we must be proactive and not reactive.

So please help ensure our schools remain a safe haven for learning and not a place of fear by supporting. Mahalo for your time and consideration. And to Representative Templo for introducing this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. Right on. Okay. Mia Nishiguchi on Zoom.

Not present.

Okay. Would anyone else like to testify in person or on Zoom on this measure? We have a total of 106 testimonies and support and two with comments and none with opposition. Anyone on the Committee have any questions for the testifiers?

Okay, very good. I do. Oh, you do? Go ahead, please. Can I ask DOE some questions? Morning. Thank you for being here today. So I was reading through your testimony. And it says the Department believes that. This bill is unnecessary. So because you currently have procedures in. Place, can you please explain to us.

What happens during situations like these?

Yes, thank you for that question. So I think I just wanted to clarify that when we make a statement that is unnecessary, these procedures are definitely necessary. Just that the bill is not going to initiate for us to do this because We've already rolled it out March of last year.

So just to share a broad overview of what the procedure is, we rolled out to all of the field that anytime any law enforcement judge, not just immigration enforcement, comes onto campus, any staff is to Notify Administration.

So the school Administration would address the law enforcement officers, ask them for their ID documentation stating the purpose of them coming out to campus. From there, they would send the documentation to their complex area superintendent, would route it to the attorney General for advice from there.

Now, in line with previous testimony, we totally agree with everything that you were saying, the issues you brought up, because those are questions that we had to. Hence the guidance that we rolled out to the field in a case of an emergency, which would be a little bit different if everybody's safety was going to be compromised.

We would not obstruct justice in that case. But we would also immediately try to intervene to get clarification on the purpose of the visit and get advice from our Attorney General.

And is this practice standardized throughout the school statewide or each school has a different way of handling it, that standard?

We rolled this out to all of our schools in March of last year. We're planning to review it on an annual basis also.

And is everyone on campus trained?

Trained? It's basically a flowchart. We wanted to make it easy for everybody to follow. So the school Administration has a flow chart on what to follow. And then staff were told to refer any law enforcement to school Administration.

So you know how we have like fire drills and bomb threats and gun shooters. Is it at that same level of certainty and how the school would react?

I think so. We don't have drills in place for this. But just picturing school level. Being a former school level principal for 10 years, anytime law enforcement comes on campus, they're good about reporting to the front office where school Administration is.

I've never seen in 10 years an officer roam campus without checking in with the front office first.

That's fair. But we're in different times now. So if somebody with a mask and we don't know if they're someone with, you know, a sickness or how could we know how to address them? Is those conversations happening for stranger communities address these types of things?

I think we can consider putting in procedures in place to have people practice situations. We do have other drills like lockdown situations for unsafe things on campus, but those are initiated by school Administration also. I think you're asking more for Hara's the procedure.

Regular staff deal with somebody, law enforcement coming out to campus that didn't check in with the front office. Is that, is that accurate?

I guess. You know, in this kind of climate, we don't really know what goes down if they just go straight to the classroom or they would go to the. Administration to check in. So it's just kind of all in the air. And we're just trying to be more proactive than reactive.

So, like, ensuring that we have things in place is important. And I'm trying to figure out if you guys really have the things in place to address these concerns. Okay.

Can I talk to you after about that? Oh, definitely. I'd love to have to continue this conversation. Yeah, sounds good. Thank you.

Thank you. Great questions. Any other questions for testifiers? Okay, so we're going to move on then to HB 2540, relating to law enforcement. For this bill, we have 105 testifiers. And so we're gonna, we're gonna try to move these along. If you don't have something to say, that's okay. Okay, we're gonna start with Jared Redulla from Department of Law Enforcement.

Good morning. I'm Jared Redulla. I'm the Deputy Director for Law Enforcement. We're offering our comments to the committee this morning. I first want to say that we share the community, this committee's shared values of public trust and accountability in law enforcement. This said, let me just summarize some of our comments this morning.

First, related to masking, we're appreciative that this proposal has some exemptions. We'd like to ask the committee to consider some more exemptions with that. Our department has a very limited amount of undercover officers and a very limited amount of officers we can pull to do undercover work.

When we do things like narcotics raids, pick up fugitives, surveillance, we have to pull officers from different places in the department. We have a need to be able to preserve those officers' identities, not just the person who's actually working undercover. We're really concerned about doxxing and about retaliation. In my career, I've been followed twice.

Once as a young undercover officer, where a private investigator took my picture and sold my picture in the local bar and nightclub scene. And second, a few years ago when gang members showed up in front of my home and said, now I know where you live and now I know what kind of car you drive.

We're also concerned in the proposal about law enforcement vehicles and the necessity to mark them. Our department has a very small amount of vehicles and we use undercover, or rather, unmarked vehicles. We have to use them for all kinds of law enforcement work, not just covert type work. And so there would be additional cost.

We're also concerned about supremacy clause issues that might place our officers in direct confrontation with federal officials. And we've seen in the current climate where, if you're in conflict, you suddenly become the target. And so I think that there is balance in this conversation. We ask you to work with us to find that balance.

One solution we might propose, at least for masking, is that there is never a time, state or local, where we as an agency have masked officers and everyone is completely masked. There are always unmasked officers at an operation where someone is wearing a mask.

And we think that perhaps we could mandate that a percentage of our officers who are present be unmasked, be marked, be identifiable as well. The masked officers are also wearing police attire with their badges out. It's just that we've covered their identities to make sure that they can't be noticed. So thank you very much for allowing me to testify.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Edward Aquino.

Good morning, Chair Ilagan, Vice Chair Hussey, and Members of the Committee. Deputy Public Defender Edward Aquino on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender. So the Office of the Public Defender strongly supports HB 2540. We do stand in our written testimony, but I wanted to highlight a few things.

We believe that HB 2540 strongly reinforces standards that each county police departments in the state of have already established in their respective general orders. We believe that this just simply reinforces that.

Because it promotes the transparency that allows law enforcement officers while in the performance of their official duties when they come into contact with the public to avoid potential misidentification. As well as this actually creates safety and avoid liability and addresses professional concerns. The other issue that we stand by is the fact that this promotes public safety, which is a paramount concern in our community.

Of concern, and as a public defender I'm aware of this, is the fact that these standards actually minimize any danger for law abiding people in our communities to be victimized by individuals or groups who may impersonate officers who are sworn to uphold and enforce the laws of our counties and our state. So it's really important that they identify themselves.

And adopting civil immigration enforcement policies under HB 2540 gives due regard to HRS 5-7.5, which is the Aloha Statute, which mandates that government officials, including law enforcement officers, in exercising their power on behalf of the people of Hawaii. They have an obligation to contemplate and reside with the life force and give consideration to the Aloha Statute.

Adopting civil immigration enforcement policies that provide for the humane treatment of people, whether they are here legally or not, is consistent with Hawaii's unique cultural background as well as Kānāwai Māmalahoe, which is the law of the splintered paddle, first enacted by King Kamehameha I in 1797. So we strongly support HB 2540. Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you very much. Liza Gill. Thank you. Michael Golojuch. Salmah Rizvi.

Aloha, Chair Ilagan, Vice Chair Hussey, and Committee Members. My name is Salmah Yasmeen Rizvi, and I'm the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, representing more than 4,000 card carrying members in our state. We stand in support of our written testimony of HB 2540.

In our federated organization's 106 year history, civil rights activists have never seen a moment like we are witnessing today. We are experiencing rapid democratic backsliding. This means, while democratic structures still exist, the government is steadily eroding our rights, including due process, freedom of speech, and accountability.

Former US intelligence officers and national security officials have reported that the United States is showing troubling authoritarian trend lines with executive overreach and politicalization of federal institutions. Case studies show that once democracy start backsliding, 70% of the time the democracy slides into authoritarianism unless civil society and our legislatures can engage in public oversight and act early.

This is what this law is about. One of the clearest warning signs of authoritarianism's rise is anonymous law enforcement, AKA masked agents. Across the continent and here in Hawaii, federal immigration enforcement has been conducted by agents who are masked, in plain clothes, unmarked vehicles, and without visible identification. And some masked agents have been filmed using lethal force against both immigrants and US citizen protesters.

Over the past year, federal immigration authorities with masks on their face have detained more than 3,800 children. When law enforcement obscures its identity, especially in life or death encounters and in early childhood experiences, fear becomes indistinguishable from terror.

And the FBI has warned criminals are exploiting ICE's lack of identification to impersonate officers and commit robbery, kidnapping, and sexual assault. Accordingly, the practice of masking law enforcement traumatizes our residents, erodes trust in law enforcement, and undermines public safety. Moreover, federal law does not broadly authorize enforcement officers to mask their identities.

To the contrary, and you'll see in this written testimony, federal laws, both in the immigration context and civil disturbance context, require officers to show their faces and be identified. This bill affirms that, in Hawaii, authoritarian like enforcement tactics that hide identity, erode accountability, and endanger the public will not be normalized.

This bill is not just about immigration, and it is more so about protecting democracy, the rule of law, and due process. And the 10th Amendment allows our states to take this action. If law enforcement's purpose is to protect, those entrusted with that power must be identifiable and act in a manner that is worthy of the public's trust. So I urge you to support this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Joey Badua on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I hear everyone's testimony, and I submit my written testimony. I also pick up on the issue of doxing and anonymity. And there was this post on a poll of a random note that talks about ICE enforcing in a neighborhood.

And it brought a lot of confusion and fear in the community because no one knew who posted that. And so, you know, this bill would clarify, you know, who is actually who has authority. That's pretty basic. That's what we learned in constitutional law.

You know, 10th Amendment does allow the state to enforce this requirement that people of authority should be able to identify themselves to prevent police impersonation. And so I stand in support of this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Susan Gorman-Chang on Zoom as well. Okay.

Would anyone else like to testify? We have 98 testimonies in support, six in opposition, one with comments. Any questions from the Committee? Thank you all very much. Moving now to HB 1886 related to government operations. First up, we have Mr. Aquino from the Public Defender's Office.

Chair Ilagan, represent Vice Chair Hussy and Members of the Committee. The Office of the Public Defender supports HB 1886, which is consistent with our previous testimony with 2546. So we stand on our previous testimony and our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Liza Gill. Thank you. Michael Golio Jr.

Okay.

Salma Risby, DCLU.

Aloha. Again we stand in our written testimony in support of HB 1886. ICE is the highest funded law enforcement agency in the United States with a budget exceeding $85 billion. As its funding has grown, so has the harm it has inflicted on our communities across the country.

ICE has fatally shot innocent bystander during lawful protest, entered homes without judicial warrants, separated and traumatized families, and jailed immigrants who posed no threat to the public safety. These actions undermine the rule of law and violate constitutional protections guaranteed by the First, Fourth and Eighth Amendments.

Immigration enforcement in Hawaii has sharply increased from 2024 to 2025 ICE detainers nearly doubled. Arrests and detentions have more than tripled. And most people detained in FDC in our backyard have never been convicted of a crime under immigration.

We know that in Hawaii, ICE is unlawfully detaining immigrants traveling to green card interviews, immigrants already granted asylum by a judge, immigrants who have served criminal sentences and were fully rehabilitated and are now being presumed guilty without any probable cause. ACLU of Hawaii is filing habeas petitions on behalf of such individuals.

And more than 300 judges across hundreds of cases have ruled that the government's new detentions, policies and practices are largely unconstitutional. Because 20% of Hawaii's residents are immigrants, our state is uniquely vulnerable to Ayes.

Escalation in the streets and citizen status will not matter, as US Citizens have been killed by ICE before a member of our community suffers such a fate. Hawaii must ensure local resources are not conscripted into federal enforcement systems that lacks accountability. The Constitution is clear.

Under the 10th Amendment, states cannot be compelled to carry out federal immigration enforcement or be forced to cooperate. A law of non cooperation. 1. Protects families 2.

Preserves public resources from liability that will ensue from local and state enforcements participating in ICE's illegal operations and aligns Hawaii with other states such as New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Washington, Oregon and California that have already enacted new laws prohibiting cooperation with Ayes. I urge you to support this measure. Mahalo for the time and opportunity.

Would anyone else like to testify on this measure? Okay. Any questions from the Committee? We have 84 testifiers in support, two in opposition. Thank you very much. We're going to move now to HB 1839 related to immigration. First testifier is Carlota amarino from the OIP. Okay, Mr. Aquino, Thank you again.

Vice Chair Hussey. The Office of the Public Defender supports HB 1839, which requires law enforcement agencies to inform individuals in custody of their rights before an interview with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The OPD submits that for individuals in custody for pretrial detention, subsection A of the proposed law should also require that the written notice provide the Fifth Amendment warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona. Subsection C of the proposed law should be amended to add the law enforcement agency shall inform the individual of the right to consult with counsel.

Furthermore, consistent with HRS 571,31, subsection C of the proposed law should state that juveniles in custody shall have contact with legal counsel and shall also, to the extent practicable, have contact with a parent, guardian or legal custodian prior to an interview with ICE .

Because the OPD expects law enforcement agencies to offer individuals access to counsel through the OPD. The OPD encourages support for HB2600 as well funding for an immigration attorney with the OPD in order to effectuate the intent of HB in 1839. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this measure. Thank you.

Liza Gill.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Liza Ryan Gill with Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. This bill, we consider this kind of our Miranda plus bill.

And essentially for those of you who might not understand the sequencing of events, if you have been arrested and you're held in a local jail, you know, pre conviction, your information has already been shared with a database that goes, that includes ICE. So they may have some indication that somebody that they're. So say, I'm arrested.

They're like, oh, I'm looking for a Liza Ryan Gill. And they come to our local jail and they want to talk to me. But English is maybe not my first language. It is, but many of the folks here in Hawaii, it is not.

They have a right to understand that they both do not need to consent to that interview. And also, whether or not they consent is contingent upon whether they understand what is happening. Right. So we've already had these conversations and unfortunately we've had a lot of churn with our police chiefs in the various counties here in Hawaii.

So we've had multiple conversations in the past. They have been very supportive. They'll need a little help from the Office of Language Access to make sure that we have these consent forms in languages that are appropriate for here in Hawaii.

We'll be very supportive in making sure that they have those things so they can, so they can easily do this work. We don't want to put an unfunded mandate or an undue burden on any of our local police. I did see one comment from the very brand new police chief of Hawaii Island.

We'll have a conversation with them to make sure that they understand that this is not a huge request. And it's also consistent with Title 6 law. And so we need to make sure that we are providing language access. Again, once again, this is not extending any additional. Right.

This is just making sure that people understand what is happening to them so that they don't sign papers that they can't read and cannot actually give real consent to.

So thank you, Michael Goliok Jr. Mandy Fernandez, good morning again.

Manny Fernandez. On behalf of the ACLU of Hawaii, we strongly support this measure. I'll just add that regardless of your immigration status, Regardless of the language that you speak at home, you. You still have rights.

Those rights are not as meaningful if you don't understand them, if you don't know that they are there and if they're not being. If they're not being respected by our authorities. And this measure is a good step forward in making sure that people's rights are being respected and that people know that those rights are available to them.

Thank you.

Yonghee Overlee.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of Committee. I'm here actually representing Indivisible Hawaii Migrant Rights team because the policy lead couldn't be here this morning. So we are 14 chapter nonprofit organization crossing every island of this state. We have about close to 6,000 Members.

Since last May when ICE agents showed up in Kona, we have been working with Coalition for Immigration Rights as well as ACLU to raise awareness of our presence of ICE agents as well as working with local service providers, provide food and other services such as translation services.

But we also have been working with county councils as well as county police to do exactly what this bill is trying to do at the state level. So I urge you to pass this measure so we could do this consistently, regardless of who your police chief may be or new council members could be.

So thank you for listening.

Thank you very much. We have James Christian Gavriloff on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. I am providing testimony for the support of HB 1839 relating to immigration. My name is James Christian Daverlo. I'm a retired army veteran and currently a student at the Thompson School of Social Work at the University of Quiet North.

In order to not only preserve but to continue to strengthen the state of Hawaii's unwavering dedication to civil rights.

It is of critical importance to the nearly 300,000 immigrants, documented and undocumented, who call Hawaii home, that this bill before you be passed with the utmost urgency in order to unequivocally guarantee that our migrant and immigrant population be given their due process and accorded all civil rights protections inherent to this Bill.

I need not remind anyone in this August body of the increasingly hostile narrative towards immigrants and migrants over the past year to present day. We have all paid witness to it in one form or another.

Therefore, the immediate passing of this bill would send a clear, politically unfettered message to not only our current migrant and immigrant population, but to all future future migrant and immigrants that the state of Hawaii will continue to be at the forefront in its steadfast support of these populations. Hawaii is justifiably proud of its rich immigrant heritage.

Pursuant to Article 1, Section 5 of the Hawaii State Constitution, no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws or the enjoyment of the person's civil rights, or be discriminated against in the exercise of of these rights because of race or ancestry.

The passing of this legislation can and will guarantee that Article 1, Section 5 of 5 of Hawaii's Constitution will continue to be unwavering, unwaveringly met, and most important, that all protections of due process and civil rights be lawfully afforded to our migrant and immigrant populations. Mahalo for the opportunity to offer testimony.

And I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of HB 1839.

Thank you very much. Any other testifiers on this measure? Okay, we have 116 in support. 5 and 1 with comments. Any questions from our Committee Members? All right, then we're going to move on. Yes. Okay.

I want to thank everyone who came out this morning to testify these very important immigration and civil rights human rights laws and bills. And thank you for. Thank you for being here. Okay, we're going to move now to 2269 HB2269 relating to the motion picture, digital media and film production income tax credit.

For this one, we have 126 in support. So the numbers keep on increasing. We're going to start with Department of Taxation with comments. Thank you very much. Will Kane from the Office of the Governor.

Is. Is Will Kane outside? He's not. Move on to Georgia Skinner.

Hello, DBEDT. Oh, there's a traffic jam. Hold on.

It's a very popular room this morning.

It is very popular. You're running a tight ship. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Georgia Skinner from Creative Industries Division, DBEDT and thank you. We stand in support of this measure and look forward to any questions that you might have. I also have David Keeley Iholakai here today.

He's the lead for our tax credit program for any specific questions on any of the measures. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Is James Tolkioca in?

He is present.

Would he like to testify in person?

I will get him. I'll circle back his testimony, but let me find.

In that case, I'm going to circle back to Mr. Tokioka. How about Walea Constaniyau from the film office? Excuse me.

I stand on my written testimony and support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Marisha Elmore from SAG-AFTRA.

Hi. I'm going to stand on my written testimony and support and again thank this Committee and the Chair and the Vice Chair for hearing these bills and writing these bills. I also want to point to all of our actors that are here.

I've got my board President and they could probably talk much more eloquently as actual working actors than I can. Thank you again. Thanks, marcia.

Michael Golio Jr. On Zoom. Dave Erdman from the Retail Merchants of Hawaii. Okay, let's see. Carla Kuo from the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce. Oh, I'm sorry. Wrong thing. Karen Polk from the Kapolei Chamber of Commerce.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Karen Folk, CEO of the Coppola Chamber of Commerce. I stand on our written testimony. I just want to take a quick moment to emphasize just the business impact, especially our small businesses on the west side throughout our state. And I thank you for hearing this measure today. Thank you.

Irish Barber from the Hawaii Film Alliance.

Aloha, Chair Ilagon, Vice Chair Hussey and Members of the Committee. My name is Irish Barber. I'm the President of the Hawaii Film Alliance. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify and for working with us since last session. We have not seen such strong support for the Hawaii's film industry as we have today.

From the acknowledgment on the House floor of our bill's chair, John Salanoa to Senate president's supportive remarks and governor's mention of the film industry in the state of the state. We're very grateful. We will Stand on our written testimony in strong support of HB2269 and just want to highlight two things.

First, the film tax credit is a powerful jobs creation program. It aligns directly with one of the state's highest priorities, keeping local people here at home with meaningful, sustainable jobs. When Hawaii has two TV shows in production at the same time, our industry approaches near full time employment.

That translates into thousands of consistent jobs for local crew Members, performers and small businesses working. These are skilled, high wage positions that allow families to stabilize, plan for the future, and remain rooted in Hawaii. Finally, in a DBED report released in 2024, it reported that tourists who visited in 2022 were asked what brought them here.

Those that stated that they came because of a specific TV show or movie spent $1 billion in 2022. That equated to $121 million in state tax revenue, which is more than double the annual film tax cap and does not even include the taxes that are paid by film workers and businesses.

HB 2269 invests in local workers, local families, and a workforce that wants to stay, contribute and build a future here. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. We do encourage testifiers to stand on your written testimony. We have 18 board bills and there's a lot of folks, so that's great. We're moving on to Ricardo Galindez from the Island Film Group.

Well, after that, Thank you for respecting the cues.

Tom Yamachika from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii.

Good morning, Chair of Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax foundation of Hawaii. We have provided written testimony. We'll stand on that and be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Shereen Ballas, Nicole Rombawa, Mark Rosner.

I think it's all about tourism. And like Irish said, we bring tourists here and if tourism flourishes, the entire state will flourish. So I think don't look at. Yes, we will flourish also, but the most important thing is that the entire state flourishes. Tourism feeds the entire state and it will trickle down to everybody else.

So we gotta have one show. I wish you could do something really big so that we get one big show and then the ripple effect will take care of everybody else. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much.

Would anyone else like to testify in this measure? Mr. Tokioka Dgbita, would you like to speak?

I just want to say, for this bill and all the other bills, we really, really appreciate the vice chair and the Committee for all the support for all the bills that you're introducing. To the justice industry and the people in here. I'm sure I speak with them. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of. The Committee, I'm Angie Chapman with the Governor's Office here on behalf of Will Kane, senior advisor, the office of the Governor stands in strong support this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Henry Cusick. I'm an actor. I'm also President of SAG-AFTRA Hawaii Local. I stand in support of 2269. I believe this is a direct investment in Hawaii's middle class creative workforce.

Raising the caps to 60 encourages large scale productions that provide long term stable employment for our local cast and crew to stay in Hawaii. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Any other testifiers?

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair. I just want to say that Hawaii team, service local 996 and allied workers strongly support the bills that were set forth. And you need any statement moving forward.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anything. Go on, please.

Aloha Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Lucas Sano, business representative of IATSC Local 665, representing behind the scenes, film, television and live event workers in Hawaii. And we stand on our submitted testimony.

Thank you. Anyone else? In person or on Zoom?

Yes. Could I testify?

Sure.

Aloha, Angela. Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES. And so, yeah, this legislation is seeking to remove the $17 million cap to raise to $16 million per production. And this is just my own opinion.

I don't know if it's more confusing that the $60 million number is the same number per production and for all productions being produced in Hawaii. So, yeah, just my opinion. And I think this is good though, raising from 17 million to 60 because then per production, let's say the movie, right?

Lilo and Stitch, about the Hawaiian family and the blue alien, instead of spending, I think they spent 50 to 60 million dollars then. So they did spend 50 to 60 million dollars, then all of their spending would be included in this legislation's policy.

And so the budget per production can include catering for local restaurants, rentals to cover hotels for cast and crew Members and equipment.

Angela, summarize, please.

Yeah, this is a good legislation. Thank you.

Okay, great. Thanks very much. Anyone else like to testify? Okay, Georgia.

Yes. I just wanted to briefly clarify for those listening and also the membership of the Committee and our supporters here. It really is the 60 million overall cap, not per production.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Okay, anybody else? All right, again, there was 126 in support, three in opposition, three comments. Any questions from our Committee? Okay, thank you. Moving to 1939 related to taxation, we have Michael Dunford, Deputy Attorney General on Zoom or in person. Great. And then up after Michael is the Department of Taxation.

Good morning, Chair Ilagan, Vice Chair Hussey. Members of the Committee, the Department of the Attorney General understands and supports the intent of the bill. Nevertheless, we do have the following comment.

Provisions of this bill would increase the tax credit based on the percentage of local hires that a production has. Those those particular provisions may be subject to constitutional challenge under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. The Department's continuing to try to evaluate potential approaches to those issues and we're happy to take any questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to present comments. Thank you very much.

Is DOTAX here?

Yes, thank you. And the DBA Director Jimmy Tokyo will stand on our written testimony with Thomas.

Yes, we do. Okay. SAG-AFTRA.

Again standing on our written testimony as we have actors here. I did want to point that the local higher issue that this is a bonus and not a barrier. And that's something to consider.

Recent Supreme Court case, National Pork Producers Council versus Ross in 2023 where the court clearly and stated and clarified that unless the state law purposefully discriminate, discriminates against out of state interest or individuals, that it could be upheld as a legitimate local interest. And I think hiring local and local workers is indeed a legitimate state interest.

Thank you.

Thank you. Gerard Elmore followed by Michael Go Jr. Okay, is Michael in? Okay, then Irish Barber, followed by Tyler Young. I'm sorry. Followed by Tom Yamachika.

So Irish, Irish barber. Hawaii Film Alliance stands on our written testimony and open for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Tommy Yamachika followed by Shereen Ballas.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the community, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We stand in the written comments and are available for questions.

Thank you. Shereen Ballas followed by Nicole Rambawa. Shireen. Okay, Nicole Rambawa followed by Mark Rosner. Okay, okay.

Okay. Let's see. I think that's all we have in terms of our testimony. Would anyone else like to testify?

I'd like to testify. Chair, actually.

Hold on one second. There's someone here.

Please.

Thank you.

Chairs. Vice chair, Member of the Committee, Henry Huck. Hawaii SAG-AFTRA President, Hawaii after local. I believe that this Bill I'm standing support of 1939. I believe this bill will keep our best and our brightest talents at home here in Hawaii and is a step in diversifying our local economy. Thank you, Angela.

Yes, Angela. Melody Young testifying on behalf of cares. Yeah, so I'm actually in a production as Ms. Chinatown Honda. I am in support because summarize this. Yes. Okay. So in the legislation, it does have a policy to focus on indigenous content. So the University of Hawaii, the School of Cinematic Arts, emphasizes Pacific Islander and Asian American narratives.

I think as you were strengthening the pipeline of students that are going to be transitioning to have successful jobs in the filmmaking industry. To have this policy legislated is good preparation to work with the University of Hawaii school system.

And then also to have local hires is also a good thing to include for getting the local cast and crew and extras that are locally from Hawaii.

Thank you. Okay, any other testifiers? Any questions? Oh, please.

You know, layman's terms. Not saying you cannot feel me saying that. If you do, in fact, then this is a percentage you will get. You know what I mean? But at the end of the day, you're not saying that you cannot. So all that, you know, discriminatory stuff with the limits, I don't get it.

But I just know that we need local people for stay home and stop leaving the island. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Any other testifiers, Any questions from our Committee? I want to thank the 65 testifiers in support and five with comments. Moving now to HB2037.

Okay. 2037. Mr. Tokioka from DBEDT. Did you want to... Thank you. DOTAX, followed by Georja Skinner.

Garrison Kurth, DOTAX. We'll stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Georja Skinner, followed by Mericia Elmore.

Creative Industries, DBEDT, Georja Skinner. We stand in support. Thank you.

Thanks. Mericia Elmore, followed by Michael Golojuch. Sorry.

Okay. Mericia Palma Elmore, SAG-AFTRA, standing in support. Thanks.

Okay. Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation. I'm sorry, I skipped Michael Golojuch. Is he on? Okay, great. Tom Yamachika.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika for Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We will stand on our written testimony and be available for questions.

Thank you, Tom. All right. Kiran Polk. Thanks. Irish Barber, followed by Shereen Balles.

Irish Barber, Hawaii Film Alliance. We stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. Shereen Balles. Okay. Mark Rosner. Thank you. Ricardo Galindez. Okay, great. Would anyone else like to testify on this measure? Oh, please. Thank you. Anybody else?

Can I testify? Yes, Chair.

Briefly.

Angela Melody Young in strong favor on behalf of CARES. And so this increases the tax credit from 50 to 60 million dollars. And when we consider, for example, Rescue: HI-Surf was spending $65 million and then Hawaii Five-0, 3 million per episode. But in 2011, 400 million in a single year.

So while $60 million is a good amount, I think comparatively if we look at the comprehensive coverage of the financial credits in California and New York, it is much higher. So I think as Hawaii is building its industry, it is a good start. And for example, like Hunger Games was $130 million in a single single year.

Pirates of the Caribbean was 60 million. So just so you kind of get a feel of how much television series spend and movies spend. And my friend was an extra. She was the Katniss Everdeen double for Hunger Games. Okay, thank you.

Very happy for your friend. Okay, anyone else like to testify? Thank you. Okay, anybody else? Any questions from our committee? All right. We had 103 in support, one in opposition, two with comments. Moving now to HB 1635, related to taxation.

Garrison Kurth, Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our written testimony.

Thanks. You read my mind. All right, Director, DBEDT. Thanks. Mericia Elmore.

SAG-AFTRA in support. Thank you.

Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation.

Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We'll stand our testimony and be available for questions.

Shereen Balles. No. Nicole Rombaoa. Okay. Mark Rosner.

I want to quote what Irish said before. There's a report that says for every dollar we spend, we get back a buck and a half. It's like having a broken slot machine and making money. And to quote my dear friends here, why aren't we doing that bigger everyday?

Okay, anyone else like to testify?

Can I testify?

One second, Angela. I'm sorry, Henry.

Henry Ian Cusick standing in support.

Creative Industries in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Chair.

Go ahead, quickly.

Angela Melody Young, CARES, in strong favor. So why include a legal framework for defining streaming platforms? It helps with clarification of legal responsibility. For example, DSP versus UGCs. So digital service providers controlling their own content or user generated content services such as YouTube.

This helps to define the different liability standards under the DMCA, the Digital Millennial Copyright Act. So it helps to protect the streaming platforms when you put in this additional statutory language to define streaming platforms in law. Because it's essential to modernizing the legal framework and to help protect consumers. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to testify? Thank you very much. Okay, any questions from our Committee Members? All right, we're going to move now to HB 1941, relating to taxation. First we have the... I'm sorry.

DOTAX.

Garrison Kurth, Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our written testimony with comments. Thank you.

Thank you. DBEDT Director? Okay, thank you. Then we have Tax Foundation, followed by Irish Barber.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We noticed that this bill adds restrictions to the availability of the credit, and it may unwittingly disqualify larger productions in which post production needs to happen in a different year from shooting footage in Hawaii. I'd be available to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. Irish Barber followed by Angela Young.

Aloha. Irish Barber, Hawaii Film Alliance. We are in support of post production and stand on our written testimony. Mahalo.

Thank you. Ms. Young.

Angela Melody Young, CARES, in strong favor of the post production in state legislation. And so I think with the building of the University of Hawaii West Oahu Studios, this is going to help to build the studio to provide in house services for the post production work.

So for example, Lilo and Stitch and like big Disney movies are usually produced on the location that the actors and the film crew go to. But then the post production, the video processing part is then generally processed at the Disney studios in California. So you have to consider all of these things as the state builds the filmmaking industry. Thank you so much.

Thanks. Would anyone just like to testify? Georja.

Georja Skinner, Creative Industries. Concur with the Tax Foundation's comments. And also we offered comments in our testimony. It is important to build capacity here for the post production, and we also don't want to adversely impact requiring productions that are coming here to have to do it to qualify. So we'd like to work with the introducers to see how we can find a way.

Okay, thank you. Any other testifiers? Any questions from our committee? Okay, that was 1941. We only have 10 more bills. Okay. 1576, relating to filming. DBEDT Director. Okay. Irish Barber.

Hawaii Film Alliance, Irish Barber, standing on our written testimony. Mahalo.

Would anyone else like to testify?

I'm just gonna...

Angela, I just want to ask for you to please not summarize the bill. Okay?

Oh, okay. Yes. I just want to say that I'm a fan. Because it's my representative's legislation.

Yes. Okay, very good. Any other testifiers? Okay. Any questions from the committee? Okay. That was 13 in support, one with comments. HB 265. I'm sorry, 2568. Director of DBEDT. Thank you. Tom Yamachika.

This is 2568?

Yes.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We note that this measure is going to hoist the user fee in dramatic fashion. And because the user fee is dependent upon the amount of credit, and the amount of credit is paid later, it may wreak havoc with the production's cash flow.

And we do question why this increase is needed to support production of vertical film, which is a subpart of this industry in derogation of the rest of the industry. It doesn't seem fair or efficient to us. Those are our concerns. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any other testifiers? Okay, Georja.

Yes, thank you. Georja Skinner, Creative Industries. We did offer comments on this measure. First, we appreciate the idea of increasing the 0.2%, at any rate, to our Hawaii Film and Creative Industries Development Fund. It does get, it really has helped us quite a bit, but it's a very nascent amount, and it's also nascent impact.

So I think the intention of this measure is something that is worthwhile. However, we offer that perhaps the percentage may be a little extreme because it will act as a disincentive because it's going to take away money from their credit.

So what we would like to do is work with the committee on this because verticals and micro-dramas, as they're currently known, are important. Some of them are SAG-AFTRA, which is helpful, and, you know, union productions. But I think that to classify 80% total for that on the incremental amount is something we'd like to work on with the introducers and see how we can find a happy medium. Thank you.

Any other testifiers? Any questions?

Could I just say one little thing?

Briefly.

Yes. Yeah. So I'm a fan of this legislation. And so because we have new streaming platforms and miniseries, I think that this is inclusive of the productions in Hawaii. And if you could work with the actors, the casting crew, and the fashion designers and musicians to try come up with good legislation, then it would really benefit the economic development of the state. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Any questions from the Committee? Okay. Moving now to HBA2267 relating to the Hawaii Film and Creative Industries Development Special Fund. We'll start with Georja Skinner.

Stand on my testimony and support and appreciate the effort to help keep this Fund going for local filmmakers.

Thank you. Irish Barber.

Stand on my testimony and support. Mahalo.

Okay. Any other testifiers?

Yes, Chair. Just Briefly, if it's okay.

Yes.

Okay. Yeah. Angela Melody Young. And on behalf of cares, I'm a fan of this legislation. And so I think by helping to assist with this funding source, perhaps then the state can afford to pay for more training to help the University of Hawaii students and to perhaps build workshops.

There is already a workshop in the creative industries for film and music. And I tried to sign up for a class, and I don't know if they got funding, so I don't know if they did the class or not.

And so it does help to build stronger alumni graduate networks within the University of Hawaii system so that more students that then transition to successful careers can help train students and create internship opportunities. If you have these University of Hawaii students and teachers teach alongside with the state. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other testifiers, any questions from our Committee? Okay, we're going to move now to 2590. This one only has 104 testifiers.

So we're going to start with Georja Skinner.

Stand on our testimony and support. Thank you.

Garrison Kurth Department of Taxation, will stand on our written testimony. ... comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Marisha Elmore, followed by Tom Yamachika . Thank you, Tom.

Yes, thank you, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika for Tax Foundation. We note that the Bill is actually seeking to reinstate the tax environment that was in place before 2019, which is something that the industry had relied upon, given the guidance that had come out from Department of Tax in 20082009 and was affected by a series of flip flops from the Department of Taxation beginning in 2019.

So we think that certainty in tax treatment is essential for any industry, including this one. And we'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Henry Fordham, iatsi. Thank you. Kieran polk kapolei chamber of commerce, Irish barber, followed by Melissa Patak. Irish, are you there?

She looks a little frozen. Irish, do you want to unmute?

I'm unmuted, I think.

Yeah, we can hear you. Go ahead.

Now, standing strong support. This will bring big to Hawaii. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Melissa Patak.

Yes, thank you very much. Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee. Melissa Patack with the Motion Picture Association. We are testifying in strong support of. This Bill, HB 2590. I will stand on our written testimony, but to comment. This does address the get and motion picture production.

And I will say addressing these issues that are in this Bill will make. Hawaii more attractive for film production. So we urge the that this Bill advance and progress. Two notes. I know DOE tax on the Senate. Version had an amendment. I assume they have the same amendment on this version. I didn't have a chance to review.

All of the pages of testimony. The MPA does not have any objections to the DOE tax amendment. And the last thing I would say. Is on the effective date. I know it is the practice as the Bill progresses to put a defective effective date until we're down to the. End of the legislative process.

I would note that this Bill needs. An effective date of January 1st of this year, 2026, and that is because there are productions that are scouting Hawaii. Now, knowing that this Bill is pending. And are making decisions in expectation that this Bill and the corrections and fixes to the get issues will be addressed. Thank you very much.

Appreciate support.

Thank you. Ricardo Galindez Island Film Group. Thanks very much. Okay. Mark Rosner. Thank you. Okay, anyone else like to testify? Chair, One second, please. Thank you, Angela. Briefly.

Angela. Mellie DeYoung cares in strong favor of this legislation. And I think that what this does to strengthen the GE tax process for the film industry really helps. It's, you know, so hard to make money in the state of Hawaii and, you know, fashion, music, movies, filmmaking, it's an easier industry.

And you know, as someone who is in fashion, it's something where we can be very creative with our work. And in film, a lot of moms and daughters that do fashion, that model also do like music, film. And this helps to improve the lives of those who are in the creative industries to strengthen the filmmaking industry.

Thank you. Any other testifiers?

Anybody else? Okay. Any questions from our committee? Thank you. That was HB 2590. 104 in support, 3 with comments. Moving now to HB 2266, relating to the Hawaii Film Studio. We're going to start with Acting Chair of DLNR, Ryan Kanaka'ole.

Steven Domingo on behalf of Acting Chair. We stand in support and stand by our written testimony. Here for any questions.

Thank you. Barry Cheung, Department of Land and Natural Resources, on Zoom.

Barry is also available for comments.

Great. Georja Skinner, DBEDT.

Thank you. Stand in support of this measure.

Thank you. Irish Barber on Zoom.

I stand in support of streamlining the process for filming in Hawaii. Mahalo.

Thank you. Any other testifiers on this measure?

Yes, Chair.

Briefly.

Briefly. Angela Melody Young, CARES. A fan of this legislation. And so this is to assist us with the process as Diamond Head Studios, and also I helped to debate for the University of Hawaii West Oahu Studios. So when you maybe have time, could the committee also consider talking to the author of the University of Hawaii Film Studios, the tax credit legislation that helps to build the studio.

So that then these priorities can come out with a comprehensive plan together and to cover every single aspect of the film industry, from workshop trainings to building careers and helping with post production studios. Yeah. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Any other testifiers? Yep. Any other testifiers? Thank you. Any questions from our committee? Okay, we're going now to HB 2266. We have our CIO here to testify. I'm sorry, my apologies. Oh, no. 2597. Excuse me. Okay. 2597. This is related to artificial intelligence.

Okay. Wonderful. Okay. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Christine Sakuda. I'm the State Chief Information Officer. I'm also the Administrator of the Office of Technology Services, Office of Enterprise Technology Services in the Department of Accounting and General Services. And we are in support of Bill 2597.

I don't know if you know this, but the Office of Enterprise Technology Services is responsible for enterprise IT governance focused on the executive branch. We provide cybersecurity and networking services. We support critical IT infrastructure within the state, and we also support the emerging digital services.

So for example, we host the enterprise tenant for Microsoft 365 in Adobe. So that's the scope of the work that we do. We also have a data and AI office. So we are in support of this bill.

And the measure requires our Chief Data Officer, who is here today, to develop a system to evaluate and select AI governance tools for the use of state departments and agencies and establish a mechanism for reporting and publication of AI use cases and AI vendors.

In addition to adding a... It was... It's a chatbot, and we're suggesting to change that to Virtual Assistant onto our portal. And so we're excited that you are considering this and standing by for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. I just want to also thank everyone who came out to testify on the film and creative industries related bills. Thank you very much. We had 10 bills on that topic. Would anyone else like to testify on this measure, on 2597? We have three in support, one in opposition. I'm sorry.

Okay. You don't all have to leave, guys. All right. Any questions from the committee? Okay, thank you very much. We're going to move now to HB 2499, relating to demographic data, starting with the CIO. And if you would like to stand in your testimony, we would encourage that.

Thank you. So we are... Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. We are providing comments, and so we're standing on our testimony. Happy to answer any questions, if you have any. Mahalo.

Thank you. Thanks very much. Also, Richmond Luzar from Navian Hawaii. Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify? On this measure, we have three in support, three with comments. Any questions from our committee? Okay. HB 2500, relating to artificial intelligence. First testifier is Radji Tolentino, enforcement attorney from DCCA. Okay.

Now we have Ashley Tanaka or Christopher Leong from the deputy- from the AG's office on Zoom. Okay. Chung Chang from the Hawaii Broadband Office, in person. Okay. William Martinez from the State Privacy and Security Coalition on Zoom.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is William Martinez. I serve as counsel to the State Privacy and Security Coalition. SPSC represents more than 30 companies and seven trade associations across the retail, technology, telecommunications, healthcare and payment card sector. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

While we will stand on our written testimony, I just want to briefly underscore one point that I believe is really important for the committee to consider, and it's Colorado's experience with comprehensive AI legislation. HB 2500 closely resembled Colorado's AI act in both structure and approach.

That law moved from introduction to enactment in just 37 days, making Colorado the first state to adopt a broader economy wide AI statute. However, the Governor signed the bill with reservations, warning that its broad definitions and unresolved obligations could confuse and complicate compliance across the AI ecosystem. And those concerns have proven well founded.

More than two years after its enactment, the law has not taken effect. The Legislature last year had to revisit the statute to delay its effective date without resolving the core design issues identified at signing.

So that experience serves as a cautionary tale of what can happen when prescriptive AI legislation moves forward faster than the underlying understanding of how these systems operate. For that reason, we respectfully urge the committee to proceed with caution and defer HB 2500 to allow for further refinement and stakeholder engagement. Thank you.

Thank you. Computer and Communications Industry Association.

Yeah, thank you. Chair, my name is Aodhan Downey with the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Opposition.

I want to echo what Mr. Martinez says, said as well as pointed some concerns about the definitional scope being too broad, some of the uncertain regulatory frameworks that create a disadvantage for Hawaii's economy and concerns about the joint and severable liability provisions. And we submitted more fleshed out written comments. So I'll stand on those. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Anyone else like to testify? Okay. For this measure, we had three in support, four in opposition, six with comments. Going to move... I'm sorry, are there any questions from our committee? Okay, we're going to move now to HB 2502, related to artificial intelligence. Superintendent Hayashi's representative here. Thank you. Ashley Tanaka or Christopher Leong from the AG. Robert Singleton, Chamber of Progress.

Morning, Chair. I'll keep our comments brief. Just have a couple concerns with this. We're in registered opposition to HB 2502, but actually really appreciate the bill's intent, especially in contrast to the the other AI bill that you guys considered last Friday.

In terms of the approach, biggest concern we have is just the broad scope of the definitions, which could could prohibit the use of some educational chat bots that could be very helpful. As well as the concerns around the actual knowledge standard of someone's age and how that would be determined. So I just want to make sure those concerns are on record.

Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Google.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Nahelani Parsons testifying on behalf of Google in support of HB 2502. We believe that generative AI like Gemini can be a really powerful tool for learning, for creativity, and for preparing our young people for AI driven future.

However, we also recognize that minors have unique developmental needs that require unique protections. We're in strong support of this bill and we have put together some very thoughtful amendments that are included in our testimony. The intent behind that is really to create a baseline. We don't currently have any tools in the toolbox to enforce this.

And this is a very carefully drafted legislation that is based off of the California and New York models that our intention is to see this through and get it passed so that we have a tool in the toolbox. And most importantly, we have granted the Attorney General the enforcement capacity.

If you have any questions about the individual amendments, I'm happy to walk through them. But I really want to stress that the nuance in the amendments is to customize them for California to bring them in line with California and New York and also just to make this bill successful.

Thank you very much. And the Teamsters. Anyone else like to testify? Any questions from our committee? We had four in support, one in opposition, one with comments. Moving to HB 2607 relating to publicity rights. First up, we have Jasmine Chain from the HOISA Commission on the Status of Women. Apologize if I'm giving you an email. Thank you.

Michael Goliop Jr. On Zoom.

Not present.

Christian Fern from Uqua. No.

Robert Singleton, Chamber of Progress.

Again, Chair. Again, be very brief. Really appreciate the approach of this bill as an amendment to personality rights over creating technology specific regulations regarding the malicious use of deep fakes and synthetic generated content. So we submitted amendments. So I'll defer to my my written comments.

Thank you.

Any other testifiers on this measure? Okay, we have 12 in support, 0 in opposition, 2 comments. Any questions from our committee? Okay, move now to HB 2137. First testifier is Mericia Elmore from SAG AFTRA.

Hello. Standing on our testimony pointing to three things I love alliteration, ready, consent, compensation and consumer protection. And also giving thanks. Really grateful to Mike Lee and his team. To Rep. Mike Lee for this one. And thank you so much.

Thank you. Robert Singleton from Chamber of Progress.

Good morning, Chair. Again, we'll defer to our written comments here, but in contrast to the previous measure, this is regulating the technology, not the personality rights, which we believe will be a more appropriate way to prevent fakes.

Okay, thank you. Shreem Balas, Nicole Rambawa. Would anyone else like to testify? Thank you very much. Any other testifiers? Okay, do we have any questions from our committee for this measure? We have 30 in support, one in opposition. We're going to move now to 2357 relating to artificial intelligence.

We're going to start with Ashley Tanaka or Christopher Leong from the AG.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Ashley Tanaka. The department did submit comments on this bill with suggestions to clarify some of some issues we saw with the bill. I am available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Tokioka from DBEDT. Thanks. Robert Singleton.

Chair, I'll defer to our written comments, but we have concerns around the constitutionality and how this could potentially chill protected speech.

Okay, thank you. Any other testifiers?

Georja Skinner on behalf of Creative Industries, DBEDT. Just wanted to caution that some unintended impacts, particularly related to the section regarding music industry. So we would like to work with the introducers on that. We don't want to have any adverse effects on people that use Spotify here in the state as an additional revenue source. Thank you.

Thanks. Any other testifiers? We have three in support, one in opposition, one with comments. Any questions from our committee? Okay. Thank you. With that, we will recess.

Hello everyone. We are back from recess and I want to just start off with the fact that my Vice Chair did a wonderful and amazing job facilitating our testimony. Now let's get to our decision making.

We are at the top of our agenda at HB 1838 and this bill helps immigrant victims feel safer reporting crimes without fear of unfair treatment by the system. Before we go into questions, let me just share the amendments that we have.

Now bare with me, because I also want to remind the public that changing the effective date to a defective year such as 3000 allows the house to continue working out changes in conference as the bill advances forward. So you'll probably hear us defect the date often and just a clear reminder of what that means.

Now for the amendments for HB 1838 the chair recommends to define T visa as a type of non immigrant visa defined in title 8, United States Code Section 1101 A15T and to define U visa as a type of non immigrant visa defined in Title 8, United States Code Section 1101 A15U.

Chair recommends to define U or T visa certification as a certification of a form required by federal immigration law for a U visa or considered by federal immigration authorities for a T visa.

Chair recommends on page 7, line 11, to change the sentence shall respond to a request for U or T visa certification with shall either complete the U or T visa certification or deny the request for U or T visa certification.

Chair recommends on page 7, line 16-17 to change the sentence is imminently facing ineligibility with will become ineligible. Chair recommends on page 7, line 18, to insert within 120 days after the word age. Chair recommends on page 7, line 21, to change the sentence not to issue as the word denies.

Chair recommends on page eight, line five, to say the written notice of denial shall also include a statement that that the requester may request a reevaluation by the certifying entity and submit new or additional evidence satisfying the requirements for certification within 45 calendar days upon receipt of the denial.

Upon receipt of a request for reevaluation or any new or additional evidence, the certifying entity shall accept and consider requests and shall respond within the same time periods as those set forth in Section 3, no requester shall be required to exhaust an administrative remedy for reevaluation before filing an action seeking judicial review or other equitable relief in a circuit court pursuant to Section 9.

Chair recommends on page 10, line 1, to strike the sentence and violation of this chapter. Chair recommends on page 10, line 3, after the word count to insert the sentence within 90 days of the denial or within 90 days of the expiration of the statutory timeframe for response.

Chair recommends on page 10, line 5, after the word subsection to insert the sentence may be filed with the motion to seal the petition and Chair recommends on page 10, line 7, to insert a period after petition and then start a new sentence that adds this language and the court may temporarily seal the petition in all related records while it considers a motion to seal the petition in related records.

Chair recommends on page 10, line 7, to strike the sentence by the Clerk of the Court. Chair recommends on page 10, line 17, to change the word shall to may. Chair recommends on page 10, line 18, after the word official to insert the sentence or direct the certified entity or official to complete the certification.

Chair recommends on page 10, line 18 to 19, to strike the sentence to the extent permitted under Federal and state law. I'm just going to say this one more time. I may have missed this.

Chair recommends page 10, line 18, after the word official to insert the sentence or direct the certifying entity or official to complete the certification.

Chair recommends on page 12, line 13 to 16, to change the sentence so that the policies and processes established and pursuant to this chapter comply with all Federal requirements for U and T VISA certification with on the Federal and State requirements for U and T Visa certification.

Chair recommends on page 13, lines 5 through 9, to strike everything after entities leading up to line 9 at the word with.

Chair recommends on page 13, line 10, to insert on before all and insert and State after Federal. Chair recommends to change definition of qualifying criminal activity and qualifying crime have the same meaning as qualifying criminal activity pursuant to title 8, United States Code section 1101 A15 U3.

Chair notes in the Standing Committee report that under 8 Code of Federal Regulation section 214, period 14 that certifying agency means a Federal, State, or local enforcement agency, prosecutor, judge, or other authority that has responsibility for the investigation or prosecution of a qualifying crime or criminal activity.

This definition includes agencies that have criminal investigation jurisdiction in their respective areas of expertise, including but not limited to, Child Protective Services, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Department of Labor. The concern that any State or county entity that is authorized under Federal law to issue U and T visa certifications is addressed under 8 CFR section 214.14.

Chair notes in the Standing Committee Report that under 8 CFR section 214.14 that certifying official means the head of the certifying agency or any persons in supervisory role who has been specifically designated by the head of the certifying agency to issue U nonimmigrant status certifications on behalf of that agency or to a federal, state or local judge.

The concern about the definition of certifying official is vague. Is addressed under 8 CFR section 214.14. This bill's definition is consistent with federal law.

Chair recommends to blank the 100,000 appropriation for the AG to provide training and notes that amount in the Standing Committee report defective effective date to year 3000. Technical amendments for a purpose of clarity, consistency and style. And we have 20 more amendments. No, I'm just joking. Okay, so that's the amendments members. Do you have any questions?

With no questions, Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Voting on HB 1838 recommendations to pass the measure with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [roll call]. Chair the recommendations adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 1870. This bill protects schools, hospitals, shelters, libraries, and place of worship by limiting civil immigration enforcement in these places. I want to mention that charter schools are included as one of the protected community locations, as one of the testifiers wanted to insert. I'm going to share the amendments, Members.

Chair recommends to define immigration detainer as a request from a federal agency to a state or county agency to hold the individual for civil immigration enforcement purposes in state or county custody. Chair recommends to define state actor as any state or county agency, officer, or employee while performing their official duties.

Chair recommends to define state contractor as any person, business, nonprofit, organization, or other entity that enters into a contract, grant agreement, or other arrangement in excess of $1 million per year to provide goods or services on behalf of or for the benefit of a state agency.

Chair recommends to replace all mentions of state actor as state actor and state contractor. Chair recommends to define protected community locations as any facility operated by state or county. Chair recommends on page four, lines 14-18, to say to collect personal or identifying information for civil immigration enforcement purposes.

Chair recommends on page 6, line 4-8, to say within 6 months state and county agencies to operate protective community locations shall adopt and post written policies that. Chair recommends on page six, line 12, to strike the word disclosure. Chair recommends on page six, line 16 through 17, to strike the sentence and outlining warrant requirements.

Chair recommends on page 7, line 10-12, to say the Attorney General shall adopt policies and procedures to receive complaints, investigate alleged violations, and issue findings and penalties. Chair recommends on page 7, line 13 through 21, page 8, line 1 through 3, line 9 through 11, to repeal subsections B through D in Section 6 and subsection B in Section 7.

Chair recommends to strike the delayed implementation language and notes in the standing committee report that the bill has an effective date of January 1, 2027. Chair notes the amount of 500,000 to the AG for this measure in the standing committee report. Defect effective date to year 3000. Technical amendments for the purpose of clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any questions? Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Okay, we're voting on HB 1870. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any votes with reservations? Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Reservations.

Oh, thank you very much. Okay, I'll note the reservation from Representative Gedeon. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 2445. This bill protects students and staff by requiring public schools to have a clear response plan for immigration enforcement activity. I want to personally thank Representative Shirley Templau for her work in this bill. Let's give her a round of applause.

Chair, Members, before we go into questions, I want to share our amendments. Chair recommends to define near as 1,000ft, conforming with Honolulu traffic codes. Define school zone as streets and public property within 1,000ft of school boundaries.

Chair recommends Department of Education to adopt policies and procedures to address immigration enforcement activity that may occur on and near school campuses.

Chair recommends that the DOE also adopt policies and procedures for schoolastic or education related activities and events as well for school buses and marked or known school bus stops during periods when school children are present at the stop. Chair recommends on page three, line one, to say protocols for immigration enforcement presence rather than law enforcement presence.

Chair recommends that on page three, line 11-13 to say that procedures to ensure students are not questioned, detained or removed from a school campus during instructional hours or school sponsored activities without appropriate legal authorization. Defect effective date to year 3000. Technical amendments.

For the purpose of clarity and consistency and style, I want to just briefly state that DOE, I know you are doing a great job trying to address the situation. I believe there is a resolution stating the importance of this issue.

So I want to recognize your efforts for this and with this bill is to continue that collaboration and ensure that we have proper policies and procedures in our schools. Members, do you have any further questions?

Chair, if I may?

Go ahead.

I just wanted to thank you and the members and for your work in hearing this today and the amendments and thank you to everyone who testified today. But I also really need to thank the Secondary Student Conference who voted this bill as number one in their priority list.

So last week, hundreds of students, student leaders across the state came together and out of all the bills, they decided this bill was most important to them and it would impact them the most. So I want to thank the youth that advocated heavily for this bill.

Jeremiah Jacinto, senior at Baldwin High School, Chris Corrales, Campbell High School, and Keone Randolph from Kealakehe High School. At the end of the day, we just want our youth and our schools and everyone in the community there to be. To be safe, feel safe.

You know, we're a blue state and you know, in May 2025, there was that wrongful detainment of the J1 visa teachers from the Philippines. And, you know, ICE left Minnesota recently. So we don't know where their focuses are going to be next. With this piece of legislation, we need to prioritize safety.

It's really needed and I appreciate that we're trying to work together to clarify safety for our communities. Fear stems from uncertainty and hopefully this bill can help the students and help help the community. And I just want to thank everyone again for being here today. Thank you.

Alright, members, thank you for your engagement. Vice Chair, would you please take the vote?

Okay. We're voting on HB 2445 recommendations to pass the measure with amendments. Are there any votes in opposition? Any votes with reservation? Okay. Chair the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 2540. This bill increases transparency by requiring law enforcement officers to be clearly identifiable. Oh, my goodness, I'm losing it now. All right, Members, here are the amendments for this bill.

I want to state that the Chair recommends to repeal language from HB 2540 in regards prohibits with certain exemptions and the use of facial coverings and requires visible identification by law enforcement officers and their vehicles in the performance of their duties.

Also repeal language in regards to establish criminal offenses for improper facial coverings, lack of visible identification, and unauthorized civil immigration interrogation. The reason why we're doing this is because we're actually not using this bill for the vehicle for facial coverings.

And the Chair notes in the standing committee report that this bill is a vehicle for limiting collaboration with federal law enforcement agencies and will not serve as the vehicle for facial covering language. Instead, HB 1886 will be the facial covering language.

Chair recommends to insert language from HB 1186 to HB 2540 to establish provisions regarding state and federal collaborations limiting its collaboration defect effective date to year 3000 technical amendments for the purpose of clarity, consistency and style. Any questions?

Just want to clarify. Is it moving the language for 1-881886-2254. Great.

With all questions, Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Okay. HB 2540 the recommendations to pass the bill with amendments. Are there any votes in opposition? Are anything any votes with reservation?

Reservation.

Okay. Thank you, Representative Gedeon. I'll note the reservation. Chair the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 1886, this bill limits collaboration with federal law enforcement and increase transparency with federal and state law enforcement work in Hawaii. Members, here are the recommendations before we go into questions.

Chair recommends to insert language from HB 2540 into HB 1886 that establishes criminal offenses for improper facial coverings, lack of visible identification and unauthorized civil immigration interrogation. Chair recommends to add language on penalties that any person who violates this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor up to one year in jail and up to $2,000 in fines.

Chair recommends to repeal language in regards to specifies that when federal law enforcement officers arrest a person without a warrant that it is done so in their personal capacity. Again, we are repealing that language.

Chair recommends on page two, line 21, page three, line one through five, to change subsection A to say exempt as required by 8 USC Section 1373A and Section 1644 or other federal or state law. No state or county departments or agencies may assist or cooperate with immigration enforcement operations.

And Chair recommends on page five, line two, to change the word sharing to collecting.

Chair recommends to add severability language of provisions in this act to severable if any part of the provision of this act or application of this act to any person, entity or circumstances is held invalid and the remainder of this act, including the application of such part or provision to other person's entities or circumstances shall not be affected by such holding and shall continue to have force and effect.

Chair recommends on page 8, line 12, to change the sentence operating in an undercover capacity with acting in an undercover operation authorized by supervising personnel or court order. The Chair notes in the Standing Committee report that this bill includes exemptions allowing law enforcement agencies and to conduct active undercover operations addressing concerns by the Department of Law Enforcement.

Chair notes in the Standing Committee report that this bill is the vehicle for facial covering provisions and further limits collaboration with federal law enforcement agencies. Defect effective date to 3000 technical amendments for the purpose of clarity, consistency and style. Members, any questions? Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Voting on HB 1886 recommendations to pass the bill with amendments. Are there any votes in opposition? Any votes with reservation? Thank you. Representative Gedeon. Chair, the Recommendations adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair Moving on to HB 1839, this bill protects people's basic rights and increased transparency when federal immigration officials focus on ICE is involved with someone who's already in local custody. Chair rec- Members before we go into question, I would like to share the Chair's recommendations.

Chair recommends on page four, line 12, the purpose of the interview if the law enforcement agency knows the purpose. Chair recommends on page five, line seven, provided that other accommodations shall be made for individuals who speak languages for which the Office of Language Access cannot provide translation.

Chair recommends on page six, line five through seven, upon request, a law enforcement agency shall provide reasonable phone access and reasonable opportunity to consult with the individual's attorney for any immigration interview.

Chair recommends on page 6, line 12, to fix spelling for weather and on page 7, line 17, United States chair recommends on page 6, line 18, to add subsection 6 if consent was given date and time of the civil immigration interview.

Chair recommends on page 7, line 14 to 15, to replace including exemptions provided by Chapter 92F to this language and the exemptions provided in Chapter 92F shall apply. Chair recommends on page 8, line 2, to change the records to the access.

Chair recommends on page 10, line 9 through 11, the Department of the Attorney General or the county prosecuting attorneys or the agency with separate enforcement authority may receive and investigate complaints of violations of this section and issue findings and corrective orders.

Chair recommends that on page 10, line 12 through 15, any person who is or was in custody and aggrieved by violation of this section may bring an action seeking injunctive or decoratory relief and reasonable attorney fees against a law enforcement agency who has violated the requirements of subsection A or B.

Chair recommends on page 11, line 7 through 13, to say law enforcement agency means any agency of the State or any of its political subdivisions or any officer of those agencies which is authorized to enforce criminal laws, operate correctional or detention facilities, or maintain custody of individuals in correctional or detention facilities.

Defect effective date to year 3000. Technical amendments for the purpose of clarity, consistency and style and I also want to state that the testimony by our Hawaii County Police Chief some of the concerns that was brought up is addressed in the amendment. Members, any questions? With no further question, Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Voting on HB 1839 recommendations to pass the bill with amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any votes with reservation? Chair the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Vice Chair I want to say to all the immigration advocates and also the AG who was very helpful in these amendments that without you and our members here, we would not be able to fine tune these bills and make it clear and make sure that we are setting sound policies in our state.

So thank you so much for your work and thank you members for yours. We are going to move on to decision making for 10 film bills as we have just passed out six immigration bills. First, on the top of the agenda we have- bare with me- we have HB 2269.

And before we go into HB 2269, I want to table it before HB 2266 we're going to move, which means we're going to hear it before HB 2266. So the first item that we're going to hear is HB 1939. And this bill creates stronger incentives for film productions to hire local workers and invest in Hawaii.

I want to thank Representative Adrian Tam for your work on this bill. HB 1939 follows the Governor's HB 2269 by increasing the credit from 22% up to 32%, and goes further by requiring local hires. We set clear targets to track progress. 80% in year one, 82% in year three, and 85% in year five.

So, Members, before we go into questioning, I want to share the recommendations by the Chair. The Chair recommends to insert language from HB 2269 to HB 1939 to clarify and amends the requirement for an independent third party certification. This will establish a stronger language for accountability with an independent third party certification.

Chair recommends that the Film Office shall establish policy for qualified production infrastructure and indigenous content. Chair notes in the standing committee report that the Attorney General states that the bill's local hire provisions may be subject to challenge under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, but does not provide a strong argument as to why.

Until the Attorney General provides a detailed report supporting this claim, the Chair recommends retaining the tax credit language to help grow the local workforce in Hawaii's film industry. Defect effective date to year 3000. Technical amendments for the purpose of clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any questions? With no questions, Vice Chair, please take the vote.

HB 1939. Recommendation that pass with amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any votes with reservation? Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 2037. This bill increases the cap on the film tax credit. And I want to thank Representative Ikaika Hussey, my Vice Chair, for working on this bill. With HB 2037, this committee will increase the film tax credit from 50 million to 60 million, like HB 2269.

Also, I want to thank the Governor, as HB 2269 has strong language that this committee will add to extend the sunset date of the tax credit to January 1, 2038. Add Members, before we go into questions, I want to share the Chair's recommendation.

The Chair's recommendation is to add language to extend the sunset date of the tax credit to January 1, 2038. We're going to defect the effective date to year 3,000. Technical amendments for the purpose of clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any questions? With no questions, Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Okay. Recommendation on HB 2037. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any votes with reservation? Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. We will now move on to the next bill. The next bill is HB 1635. This bill makes streaming productions eligible for tax credits.

I know he's not here, but I want to give a shout out and a thank to Representative Mike Lee for working on this bill to add streaming as eligible productions in Hawaii. I want to defect the effective date to year 3000 technical amendments for purpose of clarity, consistency and style. Members, any questions?

With no questions, Vice Chair, please take the vote.