Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Calling the HHS CPN calendar 9:00am Joining me today is my co chair, Senator Piojokole, my vice chair, Senator McKelvey, and I also see Senator Lamaso. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that we must abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 1pm Monday, February 9th in room 225. And a public notice will be posted in the legislator's website to facilitate the hearing in a timely manner.

We will be enforcing my one minute limit on testimony. I will be reading a list of individuals who submitted written testimony for each measure or we apologize if the closed captioning does not accurately transcribe the names. If you're interested in reviewing the written testimony, please go to the legislator's website.

You will find the link on the status page for the measure. We appreciate your understanding and remind you that the Committee does have your testimony, that we reviewed it. So I encourage you to use your time to either add additional comments or you can stand on your written Testimony. First up, SB2175 relating to disposable electronic smoking devices.

And first up, Department of Health. I see. Lola. Come on up.

Good morning. Good morning. Thank you, Chairs ... and San Buenaventura and Members of the Committee for hearing this Bill. The Department of Health offers comments on SB2175. As you know, we do want youth to have the best health possible. And so that means that having policies in place that also protects the environment for them.

We know that disposable E cigarettes contain both lithium and nicotine, both cataloged as hazardous waste. Unfortunately, in the way HB2175 is located in Chapter 339 in our statutes. It is under litter control, which is really referring to post consumables. And so in terms of restricting the sale of these products, litter, it's not a really good fit.

So we are recommending, though there's a measure that is following this Bill that we would recommend. We do appreciate the intent. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Next we have COPD Coalition. Valerie Chang in support. Mike Min of Aloha Care in support. Mike Min, are you present on zoom? Not present on Zoom. Chair. Okay, next up, we have Kevin Ramirez, Hawaii Public Health Institute, in support. Come on up.

I don't know whether or not you have a timer there, but you do have one minute because I didn't see it. Go ahead. Thank you.

Aloha chairs, vice chairs, Members of the Committee. Nate Hicks, Hawaii Public Health Institute. Very excited to be able to testify in strong support of this Bill. We're creating a ridiculous amount of trash just because of all these disposable products. They're creating a lot of toxic chemicals, plastic waste, lithium ion batteries that are catching fire and H power.

This is an easy fix to make sure that we keep these products out of our society. So really appreciate the support.

We are asking for a few amendments to remove some of the exemptions that are included in this Bill, while also tightening up the definition of disposable to make it in refill, not refillable or not rechargeable or intended to be disposed rather than an and for all three. Mahalo and appreciate the time and support for this Bill.

Thank you very much, Nate Hicks. Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii and support. Is there. I see somebody. Are you for coalition? Okay. Please identify yourself. You have one minute.

Aloha, Chair Buenaventura and Keohokalole and Members of the Committee. I'm speaking on behalf of the youth council for our Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii. And I am a senior at H.P. Baldwin High School on the island of Maui. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of SB2175.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have, uh, Student Health Advisory Council, University of Hawaii at Manoa, and support. Michael Paul, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction center, in support. Don Wiseman in support. Don Wiseman, are you present on zoom?

I am.

You have one minute. Yeah, I'm just. I want to testify in support of this Bill. I do recommend similar changes to what the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii has recommended helped clean up the language. I just want to point out that disposable e cigarettes have quickly become one of the most popular illegal nicotine devices used by our keiki and young people.

Please proceed.

And it serves as a way to hook them at early ages on nicotine, which can lead to health risks like cardiovascular disease, which is Hawaii's leading cause of death and disability, as well as increase their vulnerability to other deadly addictions later in life. And so, you know, as Department of Health said, this is considered hazardous waste.

These products should not be discarded in our, in our landfills or in our public areas that would be dangerous to our fragile environments or aquifers. So this is an important measure and I hope you'll support it. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next we have Anne Bull in support. Wayne Tanaka in support. BA McClintock in support. Forest Batts in support. Carolyn Azilitski and Support Linda Wiener, Emma Waters, all in support. Lisa Galloway, Jay Donita Garcia, Valerie Smalley Hodges, all in support.

And we have 1234567891011121314151617 other people in support, Maya Butts, are you present on Zoom?

Maya not present on Zoom. Chair.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify? SB 2175 Members, any questions? Oh, we also have Senator Fukunaga here present. Okay, moving on. Next up, SB 2410 relating to health. First up, we have Chelsea Okamoto, Deputy AG in support.

Morning Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Chelsea Okoboto. I am the unit supervisor for the Tobacco Enforcement Unit. Thank you for this. Time to testify. Thank you to chair for introducing this Bill and co chair for sponsoring this Bill. Our Department again is in strong support of this measure.

As of today, only 39E cigarette products have marketing granted orders. And the FDA has clearly stated that only these 39 products are allowed for legal sale in the United States. States. And over the last year, our Department has mailed out hundreds of letters to retailers and distributors to inform them, this is the authorized list.

This is what's allowed for sale. And so we've laid this groundwork and now we're asking the Legislature please give us the tools to enforce this list.

And the tools in this Bill include a directory that runs parallel and in lockstep with the FDA's authorized list certification process for manufacturers to comply with to be in Hawaii's marketplace inspection power civil penalties. And these penalties will go back to help support the enforcement effort. So we ask you that you pass this Bill and we're available for questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Office of Information Practices providing comments. Mike Min, Aloha Care and support. Mike Min, are you present on Zoom? Not on Zoom. Chair. Okay, moving on. Hawaii Public Health Institute may take for Kevin Ramirez, I'm assuming. Yes, that's correct.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, Nate Hicks, Hawaii Public Health Institute in support. Echoing the comments from the AG's office.

We think this is a great opportunity to get a lot of these dangerous products off our shelves, get these out of our hands of our keiki especially who are being targeted by these products that the FDA has deemed inappropriate. So mahalo for the support.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Ballard Chang, COPD Coalition in support. Michael Zanner, Hawaii Smoker alliance. In opposition, Dr. Elizabeth Ignacio, Hawaii Medical Association. And support. Janie Carvalho, Hamakua Kohala Health and Support. Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, Michael Poll in support. Don Wiseman, I see on Zoom. Please proceed. You need to unmute yourself, Don.

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. Yeah. Yes. I just want to reiterate what's in my written testimony that the. Earlier this year, the White House Administration gutted the FDA's Tobacco Prevention Control Division, leaving enforcement efforts in limbo.

And so it's imperative that the Legislature, Hawaii Legislature, expand Hawaii AG's office authority to enforce against unauthorized marketing and sale of electronic devices, many of which are being sold illegally in our market. So I appreciate your support of this Bill.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have BA McClintock in support. Forrest Batts in support. Jay in support. Linda Wiener in support. Donita Garcia in support. Valerie Smalley in support. Scott Stanford in support. Brian Meat in support. Shawn Higa in opposition. Jessica Chang in opposition. Jason Park in opposition. Jeff Stevens in opposition.

Dr. Lewin, I see you present. State Health Planning and Development Agency in support. Come on up.

Good morning, Chairs and vice chairs. We stand as well, strong support. You support the AG's testimony. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, next up, we have, I believe, Psychology Inter Jurisdictional Compact. Oh sorry. Come on up. Sorry, I. I went too fast. Come on.

Thank you, Chair. SB 2410. SB2410. The Department of Health is really concerned and we appreciate you hearing this Bill. And thank you very much for previously passing the tax on E cigarettes. What's happened is While there are 39 authorized products by the FDA, over 6,800 products remain on the market that are illegal.

I recently found a disposable E cigarette that has 50,000 puffs. That is equivalent to 250 cigarettes. And so 28% of our high school students say they have tried it. 17%. That's one out of six of our middle school students said they have tried E cigarettes. And so we thank you for this Bill.

This would provide them the authority for the Attorney Generals that they cannot have right now without this. So thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB2410? Members, any questions? Okay, now seeing none. Moving on. SB20 80 relating to psychology Intergenerational Inter Jurisdictional Compact. First up, we have Tommy Johnson, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Support. I am not Tommy Johnson.

My name is Dr. Erin Wilkinson. I'm the clinical psychologist and the Mental Health Branch Administrator for DCR. We stand by our testimony, written testimony. I would like to highlight a few items. Currently, we have 23 psychology positions, 19 of which are empty, four of which are filled, two of which are licensed.

We have eight facilities across the state. Adopting this jurisdictional compact would allow us to access needed mental health care for a disproportionate number of residents in DCR facilities. I would also like to highlight that forensic psychology is absolutely needed across the state. States. Excuse me. And that many of our DCR residents are awaiting 704 evaluations.

Without these they cannot go move forward in the process, the jurisdictional process or their mental health care. Adopting this would allow that cross reference.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate. Okay, Dr. Lewin, Chipa, and support. Come on up.

Thank you. We would echo those comments. We think this is true for the larger population. We have a shortage of mental health providers in General. This will help us address that need and regulate it so that it's so thank you for supporting.

Thank you very much.

Christopher Fernandez DCCA Board of Psychology providing comments Board of psychologists actually they meeting right now to discuss this.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, Rachel Wilkinson Hawaii Association of Health Plans in support. Okay, thank you very much. Ted Caalas Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and support West Virginia University Alicia Plemons providing comments. Randy Per HGA in opposition. Anybody else wishing testifying SB2080 Members. Any questions? Okay. Jack Lewin, I have a question. Okay.

So we've only just started the interstate compact for physicians. Okay. So what I'm hearing from my colleagues, their concerns regarding interstate jurisdictional compacts is that we're going to end up actually losing more then we are going to be gaining. What. What is your position regarding that?

We don't. We disagree with that. We think this will actually help. Help us organize this and manage it in a quality fashion. So we believe Senator, that this is going to be a positive step. There may be some, some initial issues in terms of implementing it but we think it's going to be come out to be a positive thing.

Okay, so because we don't want to exacerbate the shortage, right? That's right. Okay, thank you very much. Ok Fukunaga, please proceed.

Is the number of psychologists disproportionately greater on. I mean the lack of on the neighbor islands?

Absolutely. The shortage is greater on the neighbor islands and our rural areas. We need more behavioral health specialists, psychiatrists, psychologists across the whole spectrum, social workers in General and hopefully our efforts with the loan forgiveness and some of those efforts will pay off in the long term. But for now we are very short.

Okay, thank you Senator McKelvey.

Sorry. Did you look at the Board of Psychology's testimony at all?

I didn't have time to see their statement.

Well, their comments are very. Express the concerns I think a lot of people have. We have a definite dearth need. But if we're going to lower our standards to that of what we require of our own psychologists, there are going to be some issues with that.

And then also there are going to be potential issues with the CRF because you're not collecting fees on these psychologists who are coming in like others would. So how would we address these concerns moving forward with the Bill? Because they are real concerns.

Yeah. Or are they not? Well, thank you for the question, Senator. I think that we're going to have to use telemedicine types of interventions increasingly with our shortages of all specialty areas in healthcare for some time to come. If the licensing folks need some resources and staff to help them make it easier, we totally support that.

Okay, great. So you would support an outside appropriation then for the.

I think that it's probably beneficial in terms of the workload that we're asking our. Yeah.

Because obviously we want the pipeline first if we can. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Chairs. Wait. Well, okay. Sandra. Chair, I guess the.

For the board of Psychology then.

Come on up. Yeah, they're still meeting. I'm not the Executive officer for psychology Board, but I will do my best.

Oh, we don't have a. Yeah, they have a board meeting right now. Yeah, they have no position right now. That's why it's just comments.

Please put some comments. Well, okay.

This is the governor's.

The question about the appropriation, though. I mean, in the past, the concern about these types of interjurisdictional compacts was that PVL would potentially lose the revenue that it now collects on licensing fees.

Correct.

Okay. So where are we going to get the money from to, you know, to accommodate Senator McKelvey and Shipta's comment there if we're likely going to lose licensing revenue by entering into the compact?

Well, that's a good question to ask to above me. And at the same time, we're only thinking about bringing in. But when we have this compact past, we may lose some of our psychologists to male.

Well, sure, I can and I acknowledge that. I guess there really isn't. Anyone from the psychology community to testify on this measure either way, which makes it a little bit challenging.

Except for the DCR. She's an M. Psychologist.

Yeah. Well, I guess. Yeah, maybe. Come on, you're free.

She's coming at the bit she wants to respond. Oh, by the way, we do have sand AWA also present. Yeah. Okay.

Do you have any responses to any of our questions? I do. Number one, I have worked for the State Department. I've worked overseas for many years and the military. We have used this compact and psypact psychologists registered in this to facilitate care for State Department employees across the United States. It's been very successful.

Number two, I myself have been waiting almost a year for my Hawaii state license. I've been licensed in three different states to continue my practice. I'm still waiting for my Hawaii state license.

I acknowledge that, but that's not actually. That doesn't really address my question.

I think, to Senator McKelvey's point, we're talking about the scope changes here, and I just find it fascinating that there are no psychologists outside of you that are participating in this and testifying in this measure when there were a whole ton of them last week when we were having a discussion about granting them additional scope to prescribe medication.

I can't disagree.

Okay, so there's no one in the. There's no one in the room that can answer my question. Okay, thank you. Okay.

Dr. McKelvey, your funding mechanism, though, is different than this one. Okay, just so we're clear. I mean, so the funding mechanism you enjoyed with the Federal Government is different than our funding, correct? That is correct. Okay, thank you.

That's just to illuminate across the board.

Any other questions?

Well, okay. Yeah. No. My concern is that to Senator McKelvey's point, it looks like we're changing scope here, and I'm actually confused about whether, under the compact, we're making the. The conditions for licensure more strict or less strict. Because I'm not a psychologist, the way I read the Bill, I'm not sure what.

I think we might be doing both. Do you?

I would. I would defer to the board only. zero, now you want to answer?

Okay, the board has that jurisdiction.

Addiction. Well, one of the concerns is a doctor will require.

Okay, let's let them answer first question.

No, no, you can sit down. Okay. Sit up now. You got to sit down.

Only speaking for psychologist. I'm in charge of Hawaii Medical Board. I'm a supervising here. In General, Hawaii has the most restriction. We are very screening out most qualified. Right. Health care provider. We don't want anybody just coming because they have some kind of qualification. We select still things happening.

So from your cursory reading, and I acknowledge again, as you testified to the board hasn't spoken on this. But in general, it does seem like this compact will result in relaxed requirements compared to what we have now, although they will likely change pretty subsequently.

Until we see. Okay, then that's.

That's answered. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing testify on SB 2276? Okay, moving on. Oh, no. 2080. Thank you. On SB 2080. I was going too fast. Sorry. Next up, SB 2276, relating to surgical assistants. First up, we have DCCA in opposition. And yes, surgical assistants. Come on up if you want to, or if you just want to...

In opposition. That's fine. Thien Nguyen in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 2276? Okay, Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on. SB 2277, relating to hospital price transparency. First up, we have Melissa Enright, DCCA Consumer Protection, providing comments. Are you from DCCA? Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair San Buenaventura, Chair Keohokalole, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Committee. My name is Melissa Enright. I'm with DCCA Office of Consumer Protection. We stand on our written testimony in support with comments. We additionally have provided a few amendments to the bill. And I'm available for any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Dr. Lewin of SHPDA in support.

Yes, thank you, Chairs, Vice Chairs. We're in support. There's going to be some resources needed to make this work. It's an expensive process, but it's a very good one for public, in public interest. Do think that there's going to be the resource requirement. We support that.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Paige Choy, Healthcare Association of Hawaii, in opposition. Paige Choy, please proceed.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. We do stand in opposition. We understand the intent, but we do comply with very thorough and comprehensive federal laws and regulations around price transparency. And recently, the Trump administration actually reopened the process for adding two transparency requirements for hospitals.

So our preference is to focus on meeting those federal requirements, which are largely mirrored in the state legislation, so that we don't have duplicative processes or that we don't have any conflicting laws or regulations. Thank you, and I'll be available for questions.

Okay. Next up, the Department of Health providing comments.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs. Lorrin Kim, Department of Health. We're submitting comments offering an alternative that mirrors the managed care industry's requirement to contract with external review organizations. So that is also a federal law requiring managed care plans to have an appeal process for insurance determinations. And we think that's a good model for this.

As Dr. Lewin stated, this would require significant FTE and appropriation to acquire the expertise and the enforcement mechanisms. And requiring public reporting and contracting with external patient ombudsman type of entities will be more efficacious, more expeditious, and less expensive. So, thank you and I'm available for questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Santangelo, Patient Rights Advocate, in support. Steve Fenberg, Silver Plume Strategies, in support. Are you Steve Fenberg on Zoom?

I am.

Okay, please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Steve Fenberg, and I'm here to support SB 2277. I've submitted written testimony with more details, but I just wanted to highlight a couple of items. This is a policy that has passed in several states, and the purpose of the bill is to create a more functioning market in the healthcare sector.

The bill ensures that the Department of Health can monitor and enforce federal requirements that hospitals are already required to do and gives consumers a path of recourse if the hospital isn't in compliance. Just to reiterate, this bill does not require hospitals to do anything they aren't already obligated to do.

And it references the federal requirements, as previously referred to. It doesn't reiterate them. Meaning if the federal requirements change, it automatically will change in Hawaii, so nothing additional will be required. I do just want to close and say that I think policies can always be improved through stakeholder engagement.

And if anybody from the hospital industry or the regulators want to chat about potential amendments to improve the policy, I would be more than happy to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Marni Carey, Power to the Patients, in support. Marni, is that you on Zoom?

Hello. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Yes, I'm Marni Carey. I'm President of Power to the Patients, an advocacy group working to make sure all patients here in Hawaii and beyond realize their right to know the price of their health care. Health care is unaffordable in this country because hospitals have been able to keep their prices hidden.

As a result, over 100 million Americans are in medical debt, and it's the leading cause of bankruptcy. Nearly one in three Americans don't go to get the medical care they need because they're afraid of the unknown cost. This bill would put an end to opaque billing practices.

For patients, being able to see upfront prices can mean the difference between paying $300 for an MRI or $3,000. Our researchers have shown that prices can vary as 10 times for the same procedure in one hospital and as much as 30 times among hospitals. So that would change with this law.

I recently talked to a young woman this week who, because she received a $1,000 bill for an ultrasound and then realized she could have gotten it down the street for $185. That means a difference in groceries and gas for her family. When patients can see prices up front, they can shop, compare, and choose value. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Patrick Neville in support. Patrick, are you present on Zoom? Anybody else wishing testify? Oh, Patrick, please proceed. You have one minute.

Yes, thank you. Patrick Neville. I've been the former minority leader in Colorado. We passed this bill, a similar bill in Colorado over three years ago. Passed 99 to 1 in Colorado, and it continues to poll across the nation at over 90%, and for good reason.

In Colorado, this, the consumer protections outlined in this bill has been really successful. Just to give you an example, we had a patient here who was told that a procedure was going to be $1,500 out of pocket for her.

Later, when she was billed over $70,000, prior to her getting sent to collection, she was able to use this bill, go back to the hospital. The hospital came back and admitted that it was a billing error and charged her the 1,500 dollars. So that's the practical application for an actual consumer.

But in Colorado, we have the highest compliance rates in the nation. This has led to a lot of tech aggregators coming in and developing tools allowing patients to easily shop and also businesses to give incentives for their employees to shop. And so in Colorado, it has been a success. We heard a lot of doom and gloom stories that would happen if this bill passed. None of those have came true and it's been successful.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing testifying? SB 2277 Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on. Next up we have. Okay, SB 2282 relaying to ensure prior authorization. First up we have the CCA providing comments. Okay, next up we have Walden out HMSA providing comments.

Morning Chair San Buenaventura Chair Keohokalole, Vice Chair McKelvey Vice Chair.

Do we have his. His mic on or you got talk louder, Walden, or go right into the mic.

Yeah, I'm joking, Walden. On behalf of hmsa, we stand on our written testimony providing comments. We'd like to acknowledge the actions of the Legislature last year with Act 151 that put together a prior authorization working group. We believe that there's a lot of positive things Coming out of it.

I do not believe the actual final report has been submitted yet. So we would respectfully ask that this measure maybe be put on the side in hopes of seeing what comes out of the working group. HMSA is actively updating our PA processes to fall in line with 2027 federal regulations as well. Thank you for the time.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Hawaii Medical association providing comments. Next, we have Dr. Miskovich in opposition and Dr. Lewin. Next, Shifta providing support. Please come on up.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members, we think this is a novel idea, but we'd have to defer to the Department of Commerce, Consumer affairs and the Insurance Division in terms of the resources involved with it. Certainly prior authorization is a nemesis for the provider community and for patients.

We are working on it with the prior authorization working group that came out of last year's Legislature. We're not. It's going to take us a year or two to really get the progress we need there through that group, but we think it's going to work. This. We'd have no opposition to this whatsoever.

It's just a resource issue for DCCA. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Corinne Solomon providing comments. Anybody else wishing to testify in SB2282 Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on. SD 2413 relating to medical cannabis. I see OMCCR here, the Department of Health in support. Come on up.

Well, Chair, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee, Andrew Goff, the Office of Medical Cannabis. We are in support of this Bill. This has been a gap in patient access for some time now. Patients can grow up to 10 plants but don't have a reliable access point to purchase seeds.

We recently did or we started doing an education series on know before you grow for patients so that they know how to grow safely. The obvious question everyone starts with is where do I get seeds? So this will help close that gap in access and support the program. Thank you for introducing it.

Okay, thank you very much. Akamai Cannabis Consulting, Clifton Otto and support. Clifton, please proceed.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, Dr. Clifton Otto. Thanks for the opportunity to testify on this Bill in support. Just wanted to briefly summarize my testimony. Since this Bill deals with the intrastate sale of viable cannabis seeds, you may want to add a definition of the jurisdictional limits of the state for clarity.

And you may also want to allow dispensaries to sell seeds to each other to encourage in-house breeding and sale of seeds and different varieties between dispensaries to increase the variety of seeds that are available to patients. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'll be available for any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Courtney Cassir in support, Mark Camocilles in opposition, Victor Ramos in opposition. Anybody else wishing to testify in SB2413? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing I do have a question. Dr. Otto, you still present?

Yes, I'm here, Chair.

Okay, so last session, during conference, some, a couple of provisions were snuck in that potentially caused the Governor to potentially veto a cannabis bill. Basically, it was, it dealt with health information, health data information, which was codified in and referred to in, excuse me, SB 2274. Were you aware of that, Clifton?

You're talking about last session?

Yes.

Well, yes, I believe that the Governor issued an intent to veto and then reversed his position and approved the bill. So, yes, I'm aware of that. And I believe you also have a bill this session in the House, HB 1856, to repeal some of that. And you also have SB 2274 to repeal some of that language.

Okay. Are you in support of us amending this bill to put in those provisions to delete those paragraphs that the Governor found to be objectionable?

Well, yes, I would, I would be in support of that. I think that would be a great move.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Can we move on to decision making? Nope. Okay. Short recess for decision making.

Recalling joint calendar of Health and Human Services and CPN. Next up, if we are too soon for decision making, apparently there are two more bills. So next up it's SB 2425 relating to health insurance. First up we have insurance division Director, DCCA providing comments. Okay, thank you. Next we have Dr. Kimo, mayor, Alameda County, Hawaii providing in support Elliot Smith, Ohana Addiction Treatment center in support. Elliot Smith, are you present on zoom?

I am Chair.

Okay, please proceed. You have one minute.

Okay. Aloha Chair and Members. My name is Elliot Smith. I'm the CEO of the Ohana Addiction Treatment center and I am in recovery. I strongly support SB2425. Even when a patient signs an assignment of benefits directing direct payment to the provider, HMSA and other insurers refuse and send the reimbursement to the Member instead.

And repeated calls, HMSA representatives have told us they have a standing policy not to honor provider assignment of benefits for direct payment. That means 10 to $30,000 checks can hit people weeks after discharge creating serious relapse risk. It also blocks access because families must front tens of thousands.

And in these same cases, HMSA will not provide us an explanation of benefits or basic claim status details and tells us to obtain it from the Member. Patients become the payment middleman and providers lack visibility on fraud. Nothing in this Bill removes prior authorization, medical necessity review, audits, denials or recoupment on network leverage.

I ask HMSA to state.

Thank you, we have your written testimony. Next we have Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition. Alan Johnson in support. Brian Baker, Hina Mauka in support. Eric McLaughlin intervention 911 in support. Bridget Hetty, Ohana Addiction Treatment center in support. Walden Au HMSA providing comments. Walden, come on up.

You sure you don't want to DM first?

Okay, please come on up.

Chairs Vice chairs. Walden, on behalf of hmsa, just stand on our written testimony providing comments. We strongly support the efforts to expand access to substance use disorder treatment. But as the Bill is currently drafted, it appears to be almost an any willing provider and allowing for non participating providers.

We have these types of agreements with providers and enter into these agreements to raise patient safety issues as well as long term affordability. So when these nonpar providers are seeking direct payments to themselves, it almost creates that again that any willing provider type situation.

We have seen across the country huge amounts of fraud in the substance use disorder space, especially when money is paid directly to these providers. So the same types of problems that the advocates of the Bill are raising. We feel like this is another problem that is Being raised to potentially try and solve it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Joseph De Basto in support. Joseph, are you present? Case? Moving on. Michael McGrath in support. Ken Lake Clayton in support. Dr. Jeff Chester in support. John McCaffrey in support. Michael Gauthier in support. Jay Searle in support. Gil Keith Agran in support. Our former colleague. Okay, but he's not present.

April Moran in support. Scott Schroeder in support. Lee Jason Friend in support. Ken Seeley in support. Anybody else wishing to testify in SG2425 Members. Any questions? Okay, moving on. Next up, we have the Super Law, SB2491. This is relating to healthcare. First up, we have DCCA Board of Nursing in support. Board of Nursing. Okay, come on up.

Amy Chin.

Yes. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Committee. My name is Amy Chin and I am the Executive Officer for the Board of Nursing. And the board supports this bill, but we stand on our testimony. But I can summarize what we wrote.

Basically, adopting a consistent definition of qualified healthcare provider tied to existing practice acts and rules appropriately recognizes current license types and scopes of practice, reduces unnecessary statutory barriers and improves access to care without compromising patient safety.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Laura Reichhardt, Hawaii State Center for Nursing, in support. Come on up.

Aloha kakahiaka, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. Thank you so much for hearing this measure, and it's a very large one. As you know, we've spent many years in an inter-professional group reviewing these statutes and the surrounding statutes around them to understand the context. And we also have reviewed the testimony provided by the others with amendments.

I want to thank them as well for their review and commentary. I want to give one clarification from my testimony, and I apologize for my typo. I wrote section 282, and it should read section 182, for one of my recommended amendments.

The page numbers and the line numbers are correct, but it should read 182. With that, I do stand in strong support. I also want to thank the House and Senate for initially recommending this initiative. It's been a pleasure to do this work. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, next we have Department of Health in support.

Good morning again. Lorrin Kim, Department of Health. We are in support of this measure and offer a friendly amendment to distinguish environmental health practitioners and public health practitioners as being excluded from this great bill that is the product of a lot of work.

I think colloquially it was being called the Bumboocha Bill. So we're just going to lighten the load by asking you to strike the word other as indicated in our offered amendment section. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Christopher Fernandez. Department of Education, Keith Hayashi in support. Christopher Fernandez, DCCA, Board of Naturopathic Medicine, providing comments. Medicine. Written comments.

Okay, thank you. Adrian Stinardo, DCCA, Board of Physical Therapy, providing comments. Thank you. Blair Goto of Attorney General's Office, providing comments.

Morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Blair Goto, Deputy Attorney General. Basically, to prevent the definition of qualified health care provider from being too restrictive, the Department of the Attorney General recommends amending that definition on page four, lines six and seven, as indicated on page two of our testimony. And I am available for questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Ryan Yamane, Department of Human Services, providing comments on Zoom. Med-QUEST. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Eric Nouchi, Finance Officer for the Med-QUEST Division, representing the Department of Human Services. And we stand on our written testimony.

Okay, thank you very much. Insurance Division, DCCA, providing comments. Thank you. Jade Butay, DLIR, providing comments. Okay. Annette Manant, Hawaii Affiliate of American College of Midwives, in support. Hawaii Association of Professional Nurses in support.

Alex Lichton, Hawaii Psychological Association, in support. Dr. Carlisle, Hawaii Academy of Family Physicians, in support. I saw Dr. Ignacio of HMA, Hawaii Medical Association, support. Please proceed. Dr. Ignacio.

Aloha. Good morning, Chairs, Members of the Committee. Dr. Elizabeth Ignacio, Maui physician for Hawaii Medical Association, HMA. Thank you for hearing this bill. HMA strongly supports this measure. We're grateful for the hard work of the Hawaii State Center for Nursing.

And the coordination of substantial contributions from our nurses, APRNs, PAs, pharmacy, and psychology colleagues. This measure aligns language for licensed healthcare professionals. Thank you, Chairs. Available for comment or question.

Thank you very much. Next, Hawaii Association of Nurse Anesthesiology providing comments. James Maliszewskyj.

It's a complex name. Sorry about that.

I can relate.

My name is Jim Maliszewskyj. I'm President of the Hawaii Association of Nurse Anesthesiology, and I am standing on our testimony and providing comment. We actually appreciate the intent of the bill. We just would like to request an amendment.

The bill as written, while the purpose of it was to establish consistent language throughout health care in general, the one section 156 actually introduces a degree of vagary which has been cleaned up by the testimony of Ms. Reichhardt.

We stand in support of their testimony, as well as testimony of the Hawaii Association of Public Nurses and also the Hawaii American Nurse Association. Essentially removing the vagary by saying that advanced practice registered nurses are also certified registered nurse anesthetists and also removing the codicil of, as originally proposed, physician assistants doing anesthesia in the state of Hawaii.

Okay. Thank you very much. Hawaii Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Margaret Deus. Are you present, Margaret?

Just standing on my written testimony that I submitted. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Alicia Plemmons, Knee Regulatory Research Center, providing comments. Jennifer Bojanowski, Kaiona Counseling, providing comments. Come on up.

Good morning, Chairs and Vice Chairs. My name is Jennifer Bojanowski. I'm a certified genetic counselor on the windward side of Oahu and providing comments in support of this measure with an amendment to omit the clause or physician assistant from Section 121, section 451k through 5. That would bring physician assistance into the purview of providing genetic counseling services.

Genetics is a highly specialized discipline, and genetic counselors go through a master's program just as physician assistants do. Although our entire course of study is in genetics and it's followed by a national exam. And...

We have your written testimony.

We have my written testimony. Thank you.

And we have read it. Thank you very much. Next, we have Sarah Carpenter providing comments. Sarah, are you present? Next we have Thomas Joslyn providing comments. Okay, come on up. You have one minute.

I can go super fast, I promise. So my name is Sarah Carpenter. I've been a genetic counselor for seven years. I wanted to stand on my written comments, but also just provide a little bit more context than what I could originally write down.

We know that there can be negative implications when it comes to providers who are not familiar with testing and genetic testing. I think some examples that didn't quite make it into my written testimony that I really wanted to talk about is some of these negative impacts when the wrong test is ordered.

That means it takes longer to get the right test, it's longer to get a diagnosis. If there's a misunderstanding of results, that can lead to incorrect interpretation, which can lead to unnecessary treatment. So I think all of the health care providers I've ever met have...

They're all motivated to take the best care of their patients. I do think we should set them up for success though by not letting, like not offering to do something or expecting them to do something that's outside their scope.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Thomas Joslyn providing comments. Thomas, are you present?

Thomas Joslyn. Practicing CRNA. I stand by my testimony.

Okay, thank you very much. Hideru Inoue providing comments. Hideru, are you present here?

Morning. Morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Committees. Thank you for listening to me. My name is Hideru Inoue. I'm a nurse anesthetist, actually currently on strike for safe patient care and labor practices.

I also provide services in rural areas of Hilo and also on the Kona side of the Big Island. I'm here today to support SB 2491 with amendments proposed by Laura Reichhardt, Director of the Hawaii State Center for Nursing. And my written testimony mirrors that support. I'm here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Okay, next we have Miki Miura in support. Hideru Inoue again in support. Okay, you want to make sure you can be heard, right. Chelsea Pang in support. Allen Novak in support. Denise Cohen in support. Wailua Brandman, support.

Geraldine Doronio in support. Sheri Teves in support. Matt Bishop in support. Guy Price in support. And we have 31 individuals all providing comments. Another 12 individuals providing comments. Christopher Fernandez, DCCA Board of Psychology, providing comments.

Also. Okay. In the board, Elizabeth Kor, DCCA, Hawaii Medical Board, providing comments. Same? Okay, keep standing up. Christopher Fernandez, DCCA, Board of Pharmacy, providing comments.

Okay, thank you very much. University of Hawaii, Rae Matsumoto, in support. Corrie Sanders, Hawaii Pharmacist Association, in support. Hawaii Association Nurse Practitioners, in support. Leocadia Conlon, Hawaii Academy of Physician Assistants, in support. Jason Celestino providing comments.

Joanne Yeung providing. Nicole Young in support. Natalie Welch providing comments. Gabrielle Wright providing comments. Anybody else wishing testify on SB 2491? Members, any questions? Can we move on to decision making or do you want a recess? Okay, recess for decision making.

Calling on SB for decision making on HHS CPN. First up, SB 2175 Chair's recommendation is to pass with technical and non substantive amendments. Need for clarity and consistency. Consistency. Any comments, questions concern passed with amendments seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

Okay. For the vote in 2175 passed with amendments noting that everyone is here except for Senator Favela or the earning noes or WRS seeing none. Your recommendations have been adopted.

CPN same recommendation. Chair VOT.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes I. Senator McKelvey. Yes, Senator . Yes, Senator AWA. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have SB 2410. We're going to pass this with a defective date because of the WAM. It still needs to go through. I'm—so passed with amendments. Any comments, questions, concerns? Only with the effective date of January 30, 2050.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thanks.

CPN, same recommendation. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay. For SB 2080, I'd like to note that this is a Governor's Bill. We're going to ask—we're going to, we're going to pass this with just a defective date of January 30th, 2050. We're going to note that the effective implementation is already a year later on. You know what? We'll make it a two-year implementation date.

So, two years on the date of defect. Date of implementation will be two years on the date of effective date to allow for DCCA and for the various boards to provide comments, other than comments. Okay. Any comments, questions, concerns? Pass with amendments. Okay.

Two-year runway to effective defective date of January 30th, 2050.

Appreciate it. Know it's a work in progress. Still have concerns. We'll be going WR for now.

[Roll Call]

That's fine.

CPN same recommendation. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

No. And if I can comment a question just in general. I understand it's hard to get the licenses here, but we don't support making compacts to bring in people from outside of Hawaii when we want local jobs. Thank you.

Okay, your recommendation is adopted.

So for SB 2276, medical board is against this. I think recommendation is to defer it. So we're going to move on to CPN.

Same recommendation deferred indefinitely.

Defer indefinitely. So for SB 2277 relating to hospital price transparency, Chair's recommendation is to pass this with number of amendments. We're going to accept DCCA's suggested amendments by deleting existing language at page 17, lines 123 and replace it with any violation of this section.

Shall be deemed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of Chapter 480. On page 13, we're going to insert language clarifying which agencies may bring an action to collect civil penalties. And we're going to insert a new section to read as follows. Remedies for under Chapter 321 remedies are not exclusive.

The remedies provided for this chapter are in addition to and not exclusive of any other remedies provided by law. Technical non substantive amendments need for clarity and consistency. We're also going to put a Defective date of January 30, 2050 to continue further discussion. Any comments, questions, concerns say none Vice Chair for the vote okay.

A recommendation on 2277 is a raft of amendments as a Senate draft one noting the of extent excuse of Senator Favela. Are there any wrs or no seeing none recommendations adopted.

CPN same recommendation Chair Votes aye thank you.

Of the CPN Members present any voting with reservations or objections seen none measures adopted. Thank you.

Thank you. For SB 2282. We're going to defer that and definitely nobody seems to like it. Thank you. I like it.

CPN same recommendation okay.

Thank you. So for SB 2413, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. We're going to insert we're going to insert as part two the language from SB 2274 and add technical non substantive amendments need for clarity and consistency. We're also going to put a Defective date of January 302050.

Any comments, questions, concerns seeing none Vice Chair for the vote pass with amendment okay.

2413 is the Senate draft one noting excuses Senator Favela any WRS or no's for the Health Committee Seeing none recommendations adopted.

CPN same recommendation Chair votes I of the CPN Members present any voting with reservations or objections hearing none measure is adopted.

Thank you. So for SB 2425 Chair's recommendation is to pass this with amendments. We're going to delete. We understand HMSA's concerns about being part of the about the contractual requirements which normally would bring costs down. However, because of the substantial need for substance abuse treatment, we're going to be passing this with amendments.

We're going to delete subsections D and E, amend subsection I by removing the phrase that are not subject to state licensure. We're going to still require those receiving the monies to be state-licensed. We're going to add in also the effective date of January 30, 2050 to make sure that the conversation continues. Any comments, questions, concerns?

Seeing that, I would just like to note. Chair thank you for your work on this.

I appreciate the concern of the insurers, but I think a situation where you have someone in dire need of substance abuse treatment being sent possession of a potentially five-figure check to be dedicated to their own treatment is not an ideal situation and we need to clean that up. Thank you Chair.

Yeah, thank you. And so. So I agree with Chair and this one would ensure that goes directly to the provider and not the patient. So I. I echo CPN Chair's concerns. So any comments, questions, Concerns passed with amendments. Vice Chair for the vote.

2425 Recommendation as Senate draft one noting excuse of Senator Favela. Any WRS or Nos seeing none. Your recommendation has been adopted.

CPN same recommendation. Chair votes.

I thank you. CPN Members present any voting with reservations or object hearing. None. Recommendation is adopted.

SB2491 Chair really appreciate HSCN's huge work on trying to clean up the language. Substantial amendments though. Okay. Based upon numerous people testifying. So Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. We are going to accept Attorney General's proposed amendments, Department of Health's proposed amendments, even HSCN suggested amendments.

We're going to remove the phrase Physician's Assistant from section 121subc Date of implementation will give them a huge Runway of two years from effective date. We are going to repeal section 378.32subB technical non-substantive amendments need for clarity and consistency to continue on the conversation.

I'm sure the next Committee will appreciate any comments after all of these amendments go through. So look at it, see whether what other amendments need to be done. We're going to put in a defective date of January 30, 2050. Any comments, questions, concerns passed with substantial amendments.

Okay. Appreciate your work on this Chair. And because there's a lot of work. 2491 Senate Draft 1 noting excuse of Senator Favella. Any WRS or no's? Is he there? Okay. Seeing none recommendations adopted.

CPN same recommendation Chair both sides.

Thank you. Of the Members present any voting with reservations or objections hearing None. Recommendation is.

And with that we are adjourned. Thank you for.

Good morning and welcome. This is our Friday, February 6, 2026 9:30am agenda in Conference Room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol. This is a joint Committee agenda between the committees on Senate Committees on Commerce and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Hawaiian affairs to consider two bills. We have a substantial amount of testimony on these measures.

We do. We do enforce a time limit on testimony in this Committee. And it's because we have session at 11:30, and if we are not able to make recommendations on these measures, then they get deferred to later and then nobody gets to see what happened.

So unless you go back in, come back later, or you watch on YouTube later, we have provided the testimony to all of the Committee Members and it has been made available to the public online this morning.

So for the professionals in the room, I highly recommend that you stand on your testimony, particularly if you intend to just read it verbatim at the table. But you can make yourself available for questions. And with that, we'll proceed. The first measure is SB2784 relating to taxation.

This measure applies the retail or higher general excise tax or use tax rate to purchases or imports of new motor vehicles by car rental companies and appropriates funds for a position in the Department of Taxation. The measure also appropriates funds to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to address the beneficiary wait list.

First up, we have the Attorney General with comments. Good morning.

Good morning, Chairs, Members of the Committee. I'm Maya Van Drunen from the Attorney General's Office. Our office provided written testimony with comments and recommendations regarding section 7 of the Bill and the single subject requirement of the state constitution. I am available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have the Department of Taxation with comments. Thank you. Thank you for standing on your testimony. Department of Hawaiian Homelands in support. Good morning.

Aloha, Chairs, Members of the Committee, Oriana Leo from DHHL. The Department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. We recognize this legislative proposal as a unique and alternative for funding not just for the Department, but for the state that does not place a financial burden on residents. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii State Teachers Association offering comments. Good morning.

Aloha. Good morning, Chair, Chairs, Committee Members, Osatui, President of the Hawaii State Teachers Association. We'd like to offer an amendment. This is—we know that the state is desperate for money. And so, this is something that we have been working on for many, many months.

And we know that others wanted to find ways to maybe utilize this funding source as well. We asked that we completely support the Hawaiian community. In fact, at HSTA, we've established a Hawaiian Education Committee during my presidency because Hawaiian issues matter very much. To that end, we also have teachers who have been working during the COVID pandemic.

And so, the original intent of this structure was to fund the temporary Teacher Hazard Pay Fund that would sunset after the payments were completed. So, we ask if you can please include Senate Bill 2394 and all the things in in there into this Bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Ho'o Manapono LLC in support. Hawaiian Council in support. Thank you very much. Avis Budget Car Rental in opposition. Morning.

Good morning. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, Lori Lum, on behalf of Avis Budget Car Rental. We respectfully oppose this Bill. We believe there's not sufficient legal nexus to justify using rental car sales tax revenues to address DHHL's beneficiary wait list.

Furthermore, rental vehicles qualify as capital goods and there is a statutory basis for wholesale treatment and acquisition while preserving rental GET on rental receipts when you rent a car. Also, when you do rent a car, you're subject to an additional daily surcharge of $7.50 a day.

Lastly, the measure targets a single industry, so we believe it creates an imbalance in equity among other modes of transportation utilized by residents and non-residents alike. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Chamber of Progress in support. Servco Pacific in opposition. Oh, wait, was that you? Are you Chamber—Robert Singleton? No? Okay. We have Servco Pacific in opposition.

Good morning. Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Members of the committees.

Jolene Gary Ampieto, on behalf of Circle. We respectfully stand in opposition of SB 2784 but just wanted to highlight that this Bill, as it is currently written, will cause the sales of vehicles for both rental car and car share agencies to be subject to the full retail GET tax at 4%, not the statewide 0.5% wholesale tax.

This will inevitably result in the increase in rental rates to customers, both Hawaii residents and non-residents, and as well as result in the permitting of the GET, meaning the retail GET will be taxed on the sale of the vehicle to the agency and again, on the rental of the car to the customer.

For these reasons, we respectfully request the Committee to consider holding this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Tax Foundation with comments.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. Enterprise Mobility in opposition.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Committees. Chris Delanae with SanHi Government Strategies, here on behalf of Enterprise Mobility. We are in strong opposition of this, although we, we do appreciate the intent of the Bill supporting DHHL. We are in opposition.

This would—this wholesale tax is important to prevent the taxation, over taxation, of the products that eventually go down to the end user and the end user being our local families who travel to the neighbor islands to attend special events such as weddings, youth sports, family reunions, funerals. It would be impacted by this Bill.

So, the whole idea decades—the focus was to keep the cost down for wholesale types of—or for capital goods like rental cars and so forth.

So, this will have a direct impact on the end user, and this is a slippery slope because it could go into other types of products like the leasing companies for construction equipment and so forth. And these are the people that lease to contractors who build our affordable housing and other things.

So, we strongly recommend and respectfully ask that you defer this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Hertz in opposition.

Aloha, Vice Chair, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. Seewa Akai here with Hertz Dollar Thrifty Rent a Car. Same, we stand on, you know, opposing Bill SB 2784 for similar reasons and same reasons as our competitors have mentioned earlier in testimony. We have submitted our written testimony. We stand on that.

Thank you very much. We have the American Car Rental Association in opposition online.

Starting my video. Can you hear me? See me?

Yes, please. Go ahead. Good morning.

All right. Thank you very much. Chairs, vice chairs, members of the Committee, my name is Don Lefebvre. I'm the President of the American Car Rental Association. I stand on my written testimony, would like to respectfully oppose, and would like to make three quick points.

First, this, as has already been stated, this creates an inequitable triple taxation, breaks fundamental tax principles by taxing businesses inventory, and no other retail sector in Hawaii bears this burden on this inventory. Second, the rental car industry already pays a lot of taxes and is a great contributor to the State Highway Fund.

Third point I'd like to make is it hurts tourists and residents alike. I think that is not just a visitor tax, but it actually hurts citizens of Hawaii when they travel inter island—intra island, excuse me. So, when transportation cost spikes, visitors have less discretionary income to spend at local restaurants and small businesses.

This will lose lose for Hawaii's economy and I would urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would like to note that we have approximately 17 pages of testimony coming from individual members of the Hawaii State Teachers Association with similar comments to Mr. Tui. And in total, 81 individuals and organizations submitting testimony in support, seven in opposition.

And yeah, I think the 17 pages accounts for 67 individuals who submitted testimony with comments. The overwhelming majority were echoing the Hawaii State Teachers Association testimony. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to testify on this measure? Okay. Did we miss anyone online? We're still on SB 2784.

No, Chair, we are good to go.

I'm sorry?

Well, we don't have anyone else online. Sorry.

Thank you, Kat. Members, questions? Vice Chair.

I believe, Department of Taxation. Mr. Suganuma. You know, in your testimony, you kind of commented, you know, know, on how the Bill would proceed. Can you give us some examples of capital leasing types of industries? Because it seems a little strange to me that only one industry is identified, you know, in this proposed Bill.

Are there examples of other types of leasing arrangements that your Department oversees? I mean, would this apply, you know, in construction types of arrangements or other kinds of commercial arrangements or does this type of exemption apply only to the rental vehicle type of arrangement?

Yeah, so the wholesale rate—so, the way the Bill works is it amends both the GET and use tax law to basically make purchases by these rental car companies of vehicles subject to tax at the highest rate. So, they're not, they're no longer qualified for the lower wholesale rate.

I mean, generally speaking, for, you know, goods like a vehicle. Well, generally speaking, the wholesale rate applies to inputs.

To final outcome.

Yeah, to the final outcome. So, if it's a service and the good is used in the final product that's being provided or even manufacturing, then that's how it applies, so.

Yeah, I'd agree, there would be other industries that would still enjoy the wholesale rate, but because what the Bill does—is expressly is aimed at rental car companies, then they would be treated differently.

Okay, so, I guess among the various industries, you know, that are eligible for the wholesale rate as kind of a manufacturing input, are there other areas in which your Department has seen major changes in the last few years, Say, for example, where something that was taxed at the wholesale rate was subsequently taxed at the retail rate and whether or not those kinds of changes had an impact on those industries?

Yeah, I don't—I'm not prepared to give you any examples. I mean, it's something I can look at, and I can go back and ask my people for.

Okay.

The ones that actually do review these things, but yeah.

Thank you. Can I ask you a follow up question? Maybe a little bit different, so. I guess, you know, the, the wholesale rate is for inventory. It's because there's taking an inventory for sale. Right? But then these rental cars are depreciated.

And so, when you have wholesale goods taken in as inventory and then that inventory is depreciated, because they're being used as revenue generating assets, doesn't that create a tax loophole?

Does it create a tax loophole?

I mean, you're getting the wholesale break on the assumption that you're going to resell at the retail rate. Right?

That's the pyramid in claim. But we have a situation here where wholesale goods are being taken in as inventory. They're being depreciated over a 10 or 12 or 24 month period. And then, they're, and they're being used as revenue generating assets, right, and then they're later being resold. Right? But the depreciation is offsetting.

Yeah. They're getting a benefit for that.

Yeah, I understand. Right. Isn't that a tax loophole?

I don't know if.

Are there other industries where that tax strategy is being employed that you guys are aware?

Well, I'm sure, because there isn't a—there is, as noted on page seven of the Bill, right, so, this is under the Use Tax Law. So, where tangibles are purchased outside the state for use in the state, then there is, it is subject to half percent. Right?

For capital goods that have a depreciable life or purchased by the leasing company for lease to other customers, etc. So, I'm not sure exactly what industries are, I mean, I can't—not going to give you examples right now. But it's there.

Right. Yeah. Okay. But so, so that's—and it's because the resale will let it take place and so, we'll collect the tax on the resale.

Yeah, I'm assuming.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Senator McKelvey.

What is the revenue estimation that would be gained if the Bill were to pass?

Yeah, as of this morning, it's not ready. If this Bill passes out of this, these committees, and make it to, to WAM, then we will have a revenue estimate by then.

If we were to make this universal apply across all to both, avoid a court challenge, wouldn't we be able to maximize much more revenue for DHHL than simply this one sector?

Yeah, we could, we could come up with.

Because to me, it's about providing as much support as possible for DHHL. So, if we're going to—that's the aim—we should be looking at the whole area and looking at this tax being implemented across the board, not only for fairness but for the maximum revenue that DHHL needs, is that a fair assumption to make?

Well, I think if you—yes. If you allow less taxpayers to take advantage of the wholesale rate, then yeah, I mean theoretically, more would be taxed at 4%.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Appreciate it.

Members? Senator Ihara. AG, please.

Thank you, Chair. Director. Director. I want to start with a question for the Attorney General's Office. Your testimony pointed out the—maybe a fatal flaw. I don't know about the one subject constitutional requirement, and it does seem fatal. So, I'm going to poke a hole to see if we can help out.

I would imagine that having an introductory section that tells a story about how taxation and Hawaiian homelands and the lands and so forth are connected. So, if that was done, do you think that would be potential cure for the subject matter? So ,maybe, just maybe I'll ask the other question. He can come back to you.

So, were vehicular type of imports from outside of the Kingdom of Hawaii were ever taxed at the rate that we're talking about now. Are you familiar? Do we have any history?

Because that would be one how the kingdom's taxation and how the interpreted taxation may be a way to provide a narrative that explains why this particular tax and the appropriation fit together. And it may not. But if not, then it may have some constitutional problems.

But I'm wanting to just do a little excursion just in case there's

You're talking about from a historical perspective whether the Kingdom of Hawaii used to do this taxation set aside for homesteading? No.

Okay. All right. Then, I don't have a question for the Attorney General. Thank you.

I, I have a follow up for the Attorney General. The—so, instead of directly dedicating General Fund money in the measure for a specific purpose, would the establishment of a Special Fund to direct the tax revenue into the Special Fund be sufficient to cure the one subject issue?

It's a little beyond what the recommendations we made in our testimony were. So, I can take the question over and discuss it and get back to you in terms of whether the Special Fund, but it would also depend potentially on what the language is.

So, you know, if I can, especially if I can get the question or any specifics in writing, I can have a better answer. But it's something I'll have to take back.

Okay, thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, thank you. I have a question for the American Car Rental Association. Is he still online? Mr. Lefebvre?

Yes, I am. Hold on one sec.

Okay.

Hey, can you see me?

Oh, you're coming in a little soft. I want to make sure I understand what we're talking about here. So, let's start with the basics. If a regular family in Hawaii buys a car, they pay 4.5% GET on the car.

But when one of your members imports cars into the state, they buy as a fleet, and then they pay the wholesale rate, which is 0.5%, right?

I believe so.

Right. Okay. Okay. So, in September of last year, one of your, one of your members, Mike D. Lorenzo, the Treasurer of the American Car Rental Association, was reported as saying this to a gathering of rental franchise owners, "I tell them they're not really in the rental car business."

"Rental cars are just a cash flow game that we play to generate, to generate and then make them used cars by depreciating it for 10, 12, or 24 months."

So, if your own industry leaders admit the goal is to play a cash flow game and depreciate assets, why should the taxpayers subsidize that game with a preferential tax rate?

Yeah, I don't believe they're subsidizing. And let me take you through your example. So, if I'm an, if I'm a, you know, Don Lefebvre's a Hawaiian resident.

You're coming in soft, so, if—we have members of your industry here in the room, if we can't get you. But, but if we can get.

Yeah, give me just 30 seconds and—hold on one second. That should be coming in a little better. So, what I would say about that is.

You know what, we have Enterprise in the room. Why don't we have Enterprise come up? You can keep trying with your mic. I mean, if you come over the top and we can hear you, then you can go ahead. Well, so I'll move to the depreciation part of this. Right?

Because everybody who owns a car knows that the car depreciates really fast. And businesses who, businesses who have assets, they can write off their income through the depreciation of the value of the asset.

And so, in that same article, September 29th, 2025, Sharkey Lagwana, the Chairman of the American Car Rental association, said, and I'll quote, "The nice thing about full expensing"—this is about depreciation—"is if I happen to have $65,000 of taxable profit in that year, I get to fully expense $65,000 of depreciation. Now we have zero taxes."

"If you ever wonder how it is that billionaires can make all this money, it's because they're doing the same version of that." So, if Enterprise is using the same tax strategy, I'd like to ask, I tried to look online for, for evidence that Enterprise resells their fleet vehicles after they take the depreciation in Hawaii.

Do you know whether any Enterprise vehicles have actually been sold in Hawaii? Because I was not able to find any evidence.

Yeah, we gotta look for that.

Okay. Because if a car rental industry member in Hawaii is paying 0.5% coming in, which is nine times less than the local rate that the residents pay when they buy cars, and then, through depreciation, is paying zero taxes on the profit generated while those rental cars are being put out for service as income generating assets, and then they ship the car out for sale on the continent, then the 4.5% General Excise Tax rate on the retail side is not collected in Hawaii.

So, where is the pyramiding of taxes coming from? Yeah. Oh, please. Yeah, we got you now. Go ahead.

Yeah, great. Let me take you through your example. So, if I am a normal Hawaiian resident, you pay tax when you buy a car, whereas if it's inventory you do not. We however, play—pay GET.

In addition, we also pay a, what is it, $7.50 surcharge on top of that, on each transaction that we, when we rent those vehicles and when we sell the car, we also pay GET.

That you pass to the, to the customer, right?

In some form. Yes, we do. They actually pay the tax. Sorry. Yeah, but.

Yeah, I know.

But when you make it more, when you put an excise tax on a vehicle on the front end, that hurts businesses, particularly small, small and large businesses alike. So, depreciation has been a part of our tax code for eons. So, we are, I wouldn't treat us differently than any other item.

Are you aware of another industry that cycles their inventory through on a 10 to 24 month basis? Most heavy equipment operators. My father was a heavy equipment operator for 40 years and my two brothers are now. Most small businesses in Hawaii that own heavy equipment, they run that machine till the wheels fall off before they resell it.

Are you aware of another industry that cycles inventory through as an income generating asset for two years or less and then expenses the profit on the resale through depreciation?

Well, heavy machinery is typically much more expensive and longer duration than an automobile for rental. And it's actually a good thing that we're constantly cycling cars because we're able to bring in new safety technologies to that.

I think the point that I think you and Committee Members should, should understand is what is this going to do to businesses? It's going to cost us more to acquire those assets. It's going to—that will be passed on to consumers. That means higher rates for tourists. It means higher rates for Hawaiian residents.

It also is going to hurt peer to peer hosts. Peer to peer hosts often take advantage of this exact exemption that we and others in nearly every other state enjoy. And there's good reason for it, sir.

Except that peer-to-peer hosts in Hawaii are not reselling their vehicle on the continent. They're paying the General Excise Tax when they sell a car on the island. That's—those are my questions. Any other questions on this measure? Okay.

If not, we'll move to the next measure on this agenda and I'll yield to the Hawaiian first Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

Moving on to. Senate Bill 2795 relating to the Hawaiian Flag. We have several testifiers. First, Diamant, are you in or are you on zoom? All right.

Next we have in person, Imiloa Borland, Office of Foreign affairs, stands on our written testimony and support available for any questions.

Okay, thank you. That is all we have registered to testify on this measure. Is there anybody else wants to testify? Seeing none. Any questions from any of the Committee Members?

Do we have someone testifying for this Bill that I could ask a question to?

We have.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Oh, great. Okay. So I have a question. Okay, so in this Bill talks about the Hawaiian flag and the the territory of Hawaii and the state of Hawaii adopted the Hawaiian flag as is. Right. Have there been any alterations at all from the kingdom time to now?

To my knowledge, no.

So the Hawaiian flag is the state flag as well.

Correct.

Right. Okay, so are you aware of any instances where the state flag or even the United States flag had been prohibited in condominiums or other types of homeowners associations?

Yeah, I not super read up on the issue, but I did recall a few months ago there was an issue out on the west side where someone claimed that they were not able to fly the Hawaiian flag at their house. But that is, I haven't been able to. It was on Instagram.

I saw it a couple months ago. So apologies, I don't have that post safe, but I have been aware of an incident like that.

So are you okay calling that a state flag as well as well as a Hawaiian flag?

Not sure how the Office of Hawaiian affairs feels on the correlation.

Could I get a response to whether? So I guess the question is, does the Office of Hawaiian Affairs acknowledge the Hawaiian flag as also the state flag.

I can get back to you with that answer.

Thank you. Of course, I have a related question. Sure. The national anthem of the kingdom was not changed at all and is exactly how it was in the kingdom time, is that correct? That's my understanding. And has that ever been. Has anyone asked to not sing that in a public place?

I don't know that answer, Senator, but I can find that out and get back to you.

Okay. Because they are representatives of the kingdom that's still alive today. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Are there any other questions? All right, we have that recess.

Yeah. Recess

Okay, we're back. Reconvening on this Friday, February 6, 2026, 9:30am agenda in Room 229 for decision making. On the first measure, SB 2784, relating to taxation. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments. We will defect the effective date of this measure to July 1, 2050.

We will adopt the proposed recommended changes from the Department of Taxation on effective dates. We will make amendments to the preamble for clarity. We will, pursuant to the Attorney General's testimony, we're going to take out the appropriation to DHHL.

And what I would like to do is reference in the committee report strong support in the testimony that the preference of the testifiers is that this tax be applied to address the Department of Hawaiian Homelands beneficiary wait list and to address the teacher hazard pay situation referenced in the other measures. And keep this measure moving to Ways and Means for them to deliberate further. Any discussion?

Yeah, Chair. And in conversation with Chair, what the intention is that I have a short form bill that I'll be working for Hawaiian Homes to get that funding directed that way. Thank you, Chair.

Any other... Senator McKelvey.

Thank you. I appreciate you moving this along. I like the novel idea of looking at this. I think you've exposed an issue that should be discussion of greater tax policy. But to me, the whole thing about these bills is maximizing revenue for DHHL.

And I think to leave these other interests that also operate under this exemption out of the bill takes away the potential for the maximum amount of revenue. And so because of that, I'll be voting with reservations because I think we should be using this and other measures to maximize potentially as much as possible the DHHL revenue. So thank you.

Vice Chair.

Thank you. I appreciate the Chair's efforts to sort of improve upon the measure. But I was very concerned about the lack of supportive testimony from the Chamber for Progressive Action because I would have liked to submit some of my questions to them.

I do also have concerns about the way in which this particular wholesale rate is being applied to a single industry. And so I will be voting with reservations. I hope that, if anything, we can separate some of the funding aspects, which we all support, from the methodology in which it's being applied in this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. Seeing none. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair votes with reservations. [Roll Call] Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

And for Hawaiian Affairs, Vice Chair, the vote. Adopting the same recommendation as Chair of CPN for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Members, voting on SB 2784. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes with reservation. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Okay, then swapping over to Senate Bill 2795. The recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. First of all, we're going to defect the date till September 9, 2129 and I want to amend this to put a little bit of guardrails around the size of the flag.

Amend the following page 3, subsection B, line 17, P4, subsection B, line 9 and P5, subsection B, lines 1 to 2 to read as follows.

To protect the substantial interest of the association and ensuring the size restrictions do not exceed a maximum of no larger than 4ft by 6ft flag size and or the installation of a flagpole no higher than 20ft in height, given that its positioning does not exceed its this height nor does it obstruct neighboring views. Passing with amendments.

Chair votes. Hang on. Any discussion? Okay. Passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Members voting on SB 2795. Recognition of the chairs to pass with amendments. Noting all Members present. Anyone voting with reservation or no seeing or hearing? None. All Members note aye. Chair Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CPN, same recommendation. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes aye. [Roll Call] Thank you. Your recommendation is adopted.

We're adjourned.

Okay, good morning. Convening our Friday, February 6, 10am agenda in Conference Room 229. This is a joint committee hearing between the Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection and our friends from the Committee on Labor and Technology to hear four bills. I will yield to the Chair for the first measure.

Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone for your patience this morning. We had some heavy agendas, so really appreciate you waiting. First up on our agenda is Senate Bill 2158. This is relating to veterinarians. This establishes the Veterinarian Workforce Development Special Fund. First registered to testify is Deborah Halbert. Aloha. Welcome.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deborah Halbert, Vice President for Academic Strategy for the, uh, system. We stand on our written testimony. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Adrian Stenardo, DCCA. Comments. Thank you so much on Zoom. Stephanie Kendrick from Humane Society.

Aloha Chairs. Vice Chairs. Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. Very grateful to Senator Richards for introducing this measure. We support it for all of the reasons outlined in the preamble.

We deal with an acute veterinary shortage in Hawaii and our high cost of living is a huge barrier both for bringing in veterinarians who are practicing elsewhere and for encouraging our local talent to move back home. So we are in strong support of this Bill and would urge the Committee to pass it forward. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much. Jill Yoshisido from Veterinarian Medical association in support. On Zoom.

Not present On Zoom. Chair.

Okay, thank you so much. That completes our list of registered testifiers. I'll also go through the ones that have signed up but not registered to testify in person or on Zoom. We also have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture biosecurity and support. Serena Stefanek, Philip in support. Judith Aikawa in support. Vivian S. Talner in support.

Offering comments Nancy Mouldin and the following individuals. In support. Carol Richelieu, Louis Crozer, Lynn Matasau, Jennifer Chiwa, Marianne Hussenbucks, Natalie Graham Wood, Melanie Kim, Grace Lynn, Joanne Parker, Diane Shaw, and Jane Arnold in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 2158. Anyone else that wishes to take testify in this measure if not Members.

Questions? Yes, Senator Morwaki.

University, Hawaii Dr. Halbert. No need. Just as you saw in the Attorney General's testimony, it's very difficult to have a actual program if we want it to be sustained in the Governor's office. The university has a program. I'm just wondering what is the possibility of the University of Hawaii and what Department would that be in or college would that be in?

So our pre vet program is in the College of Tropical Agricultural and Human Resilience now at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. So it would probably be the most likely place we would have to think about if there is a better place here. You know of course that Windward also has a vet tech program, but that is not at the four year degree level.

So it'd be CTAHR then? Yeah, it would most likely be CTAHR. Okay, thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Members. Any other questions? If not, I'll turn it over to Chair Keohokalole. Thank you.

Next measure is SB 2387, relating to digital financial asset transaction kiosks. First up, we have Prosecutor's Office in support. Good morning.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Joint Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And we are very happy to support this bill with one small recommended amendment. First of all, I just think that, in addition to our testimony, I just wanted to draw the committee's attention to a couple of facts.

In 2024 alone, or in 2024, a 99% increase in the amount of fraud involving these kiosks. And that's partly because they're new, but that's also partly because they reduce the friction that allows these scams to move more easily.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network did in 2025 issue a notice that drew attention to the use of kiosks in cryptocurrency scams. And I know that there's also been some testimony about the transaction limits. I would just point out that the digital financial assets law in California has a $1,000 daily limit.

That was challenged in the Superior Court and that suit was dismissed. So the recommended change that we make is only a change that applies to penal law, which is essentially that normally you can interpret the or in both its exclusive or inclusive senses, and you use common sense.

But when we're talking about penal statutes, we always try to interpret it in the disjunctive and under the rule of lenity. So and would make it clear that there is both a daily and a monthly aggregate limit. So with that, I'm available for questions, and we support this testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. AARP Hawaii in support.

Aloha, Chairs Keohokalole and Elefante. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of SB 2387. We appreciate that you scheduled this hearing. We are very concerned about the fact that, as indicated, the proliferation of scams utilizing cryptocurrency, or for short, cryptocurrency kiosks has increased significantly.

It doubled from 2023 to 2024. In Hawaii alone, there were reported in 2024 68 complaints totaling 922,000. That's an average of over $13,500 per complainant. Again, that's the average. If we see that increasing, again. If a reasonable bill that is likely to pass, this is it.

Residents and kupuna cannot afford to have legislation that's passed that either gets vetoed or does not make it out of conference. We believe this bill will do that and really seek your passing this bill out. The House version died yesterday.

It's important that this vehicle is continued to move forward. We realize in conference there's a lot that can happen, but really believe that for consumers to really be protected, where we're likely to have some consensus.

AARP worked very closely with the Office of Consumer Protection as well as law enforcement folks over the interim. And so we believe we've developed a really successful model bill that has mostly been passed in about 18 other states and has proven track record to reduce the amount of scams. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Office of Consumer Protection in support.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Good morning. In the room. Thank you.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Emma Olsen for the Office of Consumer Protection. We will stand on our written testimony in support. Highlighting the amendments on page one, line nine, to change the or to an and. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have CoinFlip in opposition online. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Clara Wulfsen, joining you from Des Moines, Iowa this morning. I am the Associate Director of Government Relations at CoinFlip. And I would like to stand on my written testimony, but also take a moment to provide a bit of color about some of the issues that have been raised so far.

We hear pretty consistently the problems around scams and fraud, and we absolutely share those same concerns, which is why we support many of the provisions in this bill. However, I would like to point out that 97% of cryptocurrency fraud in America last year happened on other virtual asset service providers.

So less than 2 1/2% actually is attributable specifically to cryptocurrency kiosks. The bill before you today does nothing to address the overwhelming majority of cryptocurrency fraud. So although we are supportive of most of the provisions, we do think some of the limits in the bill could and should be improved.

I would also like to point to some data that comes from blockchain analytics firms. They independently, not associated with our company or any other operator, analyzed data on the blockchain to assess our illicit activity rates.

And they put the industry as a whole somewhere around 1% of illicit activity, which is in line with traditional finance. So although we support common sense regulation, we need to make sure it does not go too far and it's overly burdensome on the operators. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. We also have Bitcoin Depot in opposition online.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. In total, we have 27 in support, three in opposition. Is there anyone else would like to testify on this measure? Members, questions? Senator McKelvey.

AARP. I only ask you because you were around as a former director of DCCA. When, I guess if there's so many harms with this, why doesn't the state look at just banning it?

That is the bill that made it out of the House. AARP specifically does not have a position on that particular step. From our perspective, we've been working nationally with the cryptocurrency kiosk folks, presuming there are legitimate reasons that people utilize the kiosks.

The kiosk from our perspective itself isn't the... The bad actors really are the scammers who utilize the kiosk. The issue is around the friction point. So the truth of the matter is once a scammer has a person on the line, and they usually are on the phone.

So if anyone watching this, you see kupuna on the phone at a kiosk, it's a scam. They walk those kupuna or people through that process. And they aren't reading. You know, so crypto kiosk folks will say there's a lot of warnings, a lot of provisions that should get people to not be scammed.

The concern we would have, absolutely, the degree to which you have strong consumer protection is an important issue. We just have, we do not have confidence. And this is me speaking as the Director prior.

My prior hat on from a regulatory perspective that a ban on deposits will likely make it out of this body or be approved by the Governor. If you can get the Governor to absolutely say he will not veto that, by all means, move forward.

Just real quick, is this bill UDAP?

Yes.

Cool. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none. We'll move on. Next Bill is SB 2493 relating to digital assets. First up we have the DCCA Division of Financial Institutions with comments. Good morning.

Morning. Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Senators. My name is Dwight Young, Commissioner of Financial Institutions. We stand on our written testimony. I'm here if you have questions.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Technology Development Corporation with comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Committee...

Thank you very much. Hawaii Bankers Association in support. USD Hawaii and Lorenzo Protocol, Tad Tobar, in support.

Hello. Yes, sorry, I'm on vacation right now. It's like 4 AM, but I just wanted to tune in. As a local resident business owner, I really strongly support SB 249 which requires, you know, setting up, setting up a study of these, of these assets for stable coins.

I think this is going to be amazing for Hawaii's economic sovereignty right now. There's unnecessary drain on local merchants who are, are, are forced to use antiquated payment networks that charge and run seek on merchants and take those fees off island. So, I strongly support this measure. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. We also have written testimony from Zachary Manafort and late testimony offering comments from Iris Ikeda. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay, thank you. Members, questions?

I, I do.

Senator Moriwaki.

For DCCA. Thank you. I, I think we need a study. I'm just wondering what is a technologist? And with a technologist, a technologist for $300,000 be able to do the study? Are we going to get results, you know, so that we can move forward, like recommendations?

We are a division of regulators. We have financial backgrounds, you know, we have understanding of the industries that we regulate. Mortgage banking, escrows, money transmission. This is a whole new area to us. I shouldn't say it's new to us, but it's an area that we don't have the expertise in.

So, we need somebody with a tech type of background to help guide us through the technical things that we don't understand. So, for example, I can work a computer. I know I can reset it by unplugging it. That's the extent of our technical expertise. We need somebody that understands the industry.

So, I'm just wondering, in terms of the scope of work so you hire a technologist, would that person be able to give us a regulatory scheme, which is what we're looking at.

He would work in conjunction with us. So, you know, rather than hire an attorney or something, in addition to that to write legislation, we would use the office resources to supplement that. But that is one area that we don't have the proper skill set for.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

We use a consultant. Probably not sure how that would work, but yes, we would probably consult somebody because I don't think we could hire somebody on a two year basis at that salary range.

I appreciate that. It kind of dovetails into something else.

Okay, any other questions? Sign on. We'll move to the last measure, SB 2757 relating to digital asset charters, DCCA.