House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good morning, everyone. We are commencing, convening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. It is Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 2:00pm in Conference Room 329. Hope everyone stayed nice and dry this weekend. First up, we've got HB 1849, relating to licensing. And first up for the testifiers, we have DCCA Professional and Vocational Licensing Division with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Cindy Matsushita of DCCA's Professional Vocational Licensing Division. The department stands on its written testimony as provided, subject to your questions.

Thank you. Sorry, I forgot to read this thing. 2 minute time limit per testifier. If you're on Zoom, please keep yourself muted, video off when you're waiting to testify. You can use the chat function to talk with technical staff for technical issues. If you're disconnected, you can attempt to rejoin. We'll try to work you back in.

House is not responsible for bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. If a network failure happens, which, who knows today, might be necessary to reschedule the hearing or reschedule a meeting for decision making. If we do that, appropriate notice will be posted.

Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images and no profanity or uncivil behavior or we will kick you out. Okay, next up we have DCCA's Hawaii Real Estate Commission with comments. Okay. And if you're way back there, they're not going to be able to pick you up on the mic.

You can kind of tell if you can hear yourself in the speaker, then it can hear you. But if you can't hear yourself on the speaker, then you got to come up. I think it's like the first row. You guys are good. And then if you go back.

Neil Fujitani in for Derrick Yamane with the Hawaii Real Estate Commission, and we'll stand on our testimony offering comments.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We're going to stand on our testimony in strong support of this. I will just note that there are a number of individuals that have lawful visas here in Hawaii, namely folks with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, that are doing things like graduating from Richardson and becoming lawyers and doctors.

And we need to think since the federal government has been so slow in providing pathways for these individuals to remain here lawfully and to have these path words towards higher professionalization, what we can do as a state. Right now, they're very, very small numbers, but we do have about 340 of those individuals here who are doing their best to serve us in whatever way they can. So mahalo.

Thank you.

That's all the testifiers we have signed up to testify. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Okay. Seeing none. We'll move on to HB 2000, relating to the right to repair. This is the wheelchair repair bill. First up, we have the National Coalition for Assistive and Rehab Technology in opposition via Zoom.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?

Yep. Go ahead.

Thank you, Sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Committee Members. My name is Wayne Grau, and I'm from NCART testifying in opposition to HB 2000. We represent members located in Hawaii and the manufacturers that provide the equipment and services to the state. Wheelchair users across the country are facing long delays in getting their chairs repaired.

Many state legislators are exploring right to repair bills like this intended to make it easier and faster for people to get their mobility equipment services. This goal of faster repairs is one we all share. However, the delays wheelchair users experience are largely the result of insurance policies. Wheelchairs are highly specialized FDA regulated medical devices.

They're not mass produced devices. They're tailored to each person's body, goals, and environment and support a person's health, independence, and daily functions. A stronger, safer solution would tackle the real barriers. Eliminate insurance prior approvals and documentation burdens, which delay things anywhere from 7 to 21 days.

Manufacturers do welcome partnerships with independent repair providers who can meet the same quality and reporting standards. These agreements can expand access to service while maintaining the traceability that federal law requires.

The goal isn't to restrict who performs the repairs, but rather to ensure that every repair, no matter who does it, maintains the integrity of the user's equipment and the confidence they place in it every day. The legislation could increase avoidable medical risks, if you're not familiar with the clinical aspects and the clinical implications of each device.

Even a small adjustment can have major health consequences. As well as repair services, the bill doesn't recognize repairs are controlled by insurance companies. They approve them or deny them. As well as, unfortunately, if the medical, the individual, or the repair department, repair company was not part of their network, the consumer would most likely be forced to pay both the parts and the labor for that repair.

Manufacturers share the same goals as wheelchair users. Let's make it quicker and let's make the repairs dependable. We are committed to working alongside legislators like yourself, wheelchair users, advocacy organizations, clinicians, and repair techs to create a comprehensive solution to this national problem, not just a Hawaii problem.

We have done this in many other states, and hopefully you'll allow us that opportunity to work with you so we can take care of the people that we serve. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Next up, we have Peter Fritz, an individual in support over Zoom.

I don't know if my video's on. There it is. My name is Peter Fritz. I'm an attorney. I'm an advocate for people that are disabled, and I'm the person that was behind this draft of the bill. Before drafting the bill, I looked at Colorado, which passed a similar bill in 2023, New York, and Washington.

There are three other states that I could have looked at, and I drafted a bill to cover that. You'll note that also there's a bill pending in Florida right now and in Rhode Island. And then in the federal government, HR 5039, Wheelchair Right to Repair, is sitting in Congress, but based upon what's happening, it may never move.

That's a partial joke, unfortunately. I have personal experience. My sister is a wheelchair user, and I know how difficult it is when her wheelchair is not able to be used and how it affects her independence. So I respectfully request that you move this bill forward.

In my testimony I posed, I proposed two amendments based upon the Colorado law. I can stay around if you have any questions, but I am strongly in favor of seeing this bill move forward. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. That's all the testifiers we have signed up today. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? Rep Iwamoto.

Thank you. Mr. Fritz, you heard the testimony from NCART regarding potentially not being reimbursed if repairs are done without prior authorization. Is that a concern for you as an advocate?

It is a concern for anybody that needs their wheelchair repaired. Some of these expenses can be extremely costly. But if it keeps me from going to work by not having my wheelchair repaired, I'm certainly going to find a way to pay for it.

And then I will take it up with the DCCA Insurance Division about whether or not I was discriminated against on the basis of my disability and their refusal to do that. I mean, we've all encountered those problems with our own medical insurance problems, so I understand the point.

I'm just saying I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of saying this is something that's necessary for people. We can work out the details on the payment or work forward any way that seems to work for us. And I'm sorry, I'll get off my soapbox. And I thank you for your patience.

Thank you very much.

Members, actually, I forgot to have... Did anyone have any questions on HB 1849?

I did, but she's gone.

Yeah, just let me know next time. Good bill though. Actually, I did have a question on HB 1849 from DCCA. Is DCCA still here from the Vocational Licensing Division? We'll call you back up. Nope, sorry. So you raise concerns over a conflict with CFR.

It looks like though... Have a memo here from the Office of Child Support Enforcement on the federal side that allows an individual in lieu of a Social Security number to kind of simply make a statement under penalty of perjury that they don't have a Social Security number and that it's kind of fine for the purposes of child support.

If this memo is... Have you guys seen this memo at all? Okay, I'm going to give you a copy of it. Take a look. Maybe we can talk in a little bit. But I just want to know if this allays your concerns about the federal conflict. All right, any other questions about HB 2000?

Let's move on to HB 1753, relating to social media. Only one testifier here today. DCCA's Office of Consumer Protection with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Radji Tolentino with the Office of Consumer Protection. We'll stand on our testimony offering comments. I just want to note that we do offer an amendment to the definition of personal information to enhance consumer protection. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none. We'll move on to HB 1511, relating to consumer protection. We... That's odd. First up, DCCA's Insurance Division in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jaymie Yamamoto on behalf of the DCCA Insurance Division. We stand on our written testimony. Available for questions. Thank you.

Next up we have Alliance for Automotive Innovation with comments.

Members of the Committee. Tiffany Yajima on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We offer comments and some suggested amendments in our testimony just to make sure that actual and legitimate marketing departments of auto manufacturers are able to send their own legitimate reminders. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Aloha. My name is Melissa Pavlicek. I'm here on behalf of the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association. We represent 71 new car dealers in the state. We did submit written comments. Apologies if it hasn't been received. I'd be glad to follow up with your office. We just wanted to also clarify that legitimate communications from dealers pertaining to consumers' vehicles would be allowed. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions?

Yeah, I have a question for maybe Melissa. Sorry. How would... How would a consumer or recipient of email or solicitations know when something's coming is legitimate? It's coming from the person they, the company they bought it from. And how do they know if that company didn't contract with a third party provider?

I guess we would want it to be clear that if it's our customer and we're communicating with them about product services or other warranty recall, anything, that it would be allowed. I think it would have to be once the consumer received it. If they had a question, maybe they would have to check or something.

I'm not sure how to ensure that any communication is clearly, you know, marked. But we just want to make sure that the definition doesn't get so overly broad that we can't communicate the things that they actually need to know. Thank you.

Any other questions? Let's move on to HB 276, HD 1, relating to condominiums. First up, DCCA's Hawaii Real Estate Commission with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Kedin Kleinhans here on behalf of Derrick Yamane and the Hawaii Real Estate Commission. I will stand on our written comments and available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Exciting agenda today. Okay, moving on. HB 1513, relating to condominiums. First up, we have Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Jenna Seagle here on behalf of the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority. We stand on our written testimony in support of this bill, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, DCCA's Insurance Division in opposition.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Matt Tsujimura on behalf of the Insurance Division. The Insurance Division respectfully opposes HB 1513. I do want to note before I get into this, the HHRF board just met this morning. So the absence of their testimony is due to the fact that they hadn't voted on it yet. So.

But I do understand that they will be testifying on this measure, should it move forward. The division would just want to note that the HHRF exists for the critical function of providing insurance for condominiums and single family homes in the state who are unable to acquire that insurance in the authorized market. I think it's important to note the HHRF currently is an active insurance company that is writing policies.

The division further notes that there is a major concern that the depletion of the HHRF funds for non-HHRF related purposes will end up having an impact on the current reinsurance contracts, which could end up with higher reinsurance costs for HHRF.

Which would then drive the price of premiums for HHRF policies up, which would again essentially raise the, raise the cost to consumers who can't otherwise afford insurance. So it would somewhat negate the entire purpose of the HHRF, should it be more expensive. So happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions?

I have for a supporter of this bill. What is your understanding in terms of a loan being made to a condominium building, let's say for repiping something or doing the water pipes because they're faulty. What happens if they can't repay the loan? Is it something collateralized?

Yeah. So I'm actually not an expert on it. So Gwen Yamamoto Lau, our Executive Director, was planning to attend today. But unfortunately she's out sick. But she can respond to any questions when she's back in office. So unfortunately I don't have the answer for you today, but I will definitely pass that on to her.

I've got another question for you too. Anyone else have questions first? Yeah, I was hoping Gwen would be here.

Yeah, she was hoping to be here.

So do you... We're also pulling about $100 million out of the condo revolving fund. Do you need the money from HHRF for the... Sorry, I don't have to look it out. We're bonding it. But do you need the money from HHRF to make that viable or are you guys okay without it?

Sorry, I'll have to get the answer from Gwen and we can follow up.

Can you text her that question, see if she can respond? Maybe we could circle back before the hearing is over.

If we need the 100,000,000 from HHRF.

If we need some amount of money from... It's a blank amount right now. So how much do we need from HHRF to make this workable? Or do we even need anything from HHRF to make this workable?

Okay, I will text her real quick.

Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on it?

Yeah, sure. I think the only comment that I would make is, you know, last year, Act 296, which was passed by the Legislature, did include an appropriation from the HHRF to the HPIA. As I understand, I don't know if the rule making process to start up the condo loan program has been passed yet or adopted.

So the appropriation that was already included in last year's bill, I don't, to the best of my knowledge, has not happened yet because the program is not even up and running.

A little bit different. HPIA, there was I think 20 million or something like that moved over to HPIA. But this is separate.

No. So there was also, there were two. So there was one to HPIA, one to HGIA. And so right now neither loans to either entities have happened. One, because HPIA, I believe is still in the process of squaring away their product that they're supposed to offer. So they haven't, we haven't, they haven't had it. Yeah.

So to that point I think the division would simply note it may be premature to adopt a certain number since the loan that was already accounted for last year hasn't been necessary to happen yet.

And the point of this bill moving was that HGIA should be up and running, I think March, they said. So to keep a vehicle moving, that if they needed more once they were up and running, then there'd be something moving. Do you have any opinion on the blank amounts though or whether the $100 million bond would need cash from HHFDC, but HHRF?

Yeah. So for fear of sounding like I'm trying to skirt the question, I don't want to skirt the question. So the answer to you, the direct answer to your question is I'm not sure.

And the reason for that is because I don't know necessarily what the structural scheme of, is of the HGIA program for the condo revolving loan fund to I guess acquire funding from other sources if it's, if it is kind of a self sustainable thing or if it will constantly require money from HHRF to float the bonds.

And I think that's where the concern lies is that, whereas last year, Act 296, which simultaneously also reactivated HHRF. At this point the HHRF has already wrote, issued out 200 or 82 policies. They've had 251 quotes. They have 2.2 billion in coverage already out there.

So and that's based upon Aon's hard work to acquire reinsurance contracts at the current rate based on the current corpus of the HHRF. So any reduction in that, again, I don't want to reiterate that, but will have an impact on the cost. So to your question again of does the division have any comment on the amount.

I mean quite frankly, I think it's whether they need money or not, we're not entirely sure. But whether it should come from the HHRF, the division respectfully opposes that option.

Yeah, that's fair. HHRF board, if you're listening, great job. Thanks, Matt. Did Gwen respond?

I haven't gotten a response yet.

Okay, let's move on then. HB 2188 relating to housing. First up, we have OCP in support.

Raji Tolentino on behalf of ocp. And we will stand in support.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Realtors with comments.

Good afternoon. Mihoko Ito, on behalf of the Hawaii Association of Realtors, we submitted comments which are really concerns about moving this measure due to the FCRA and how it intersects with requirement that tenant screening reports be used. And also would just point out that there is a working group that is already comprehensively addressing landlord tenant issues.

So that might be something that this could be. This issue could be referred to for further deliberation. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, Any questions? Realtors. So I understand that this type of law has been passed in other states. We're certainly not the first in the nation for it. You mentioned federal.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Yeah, the Fair Credit Reporting Act. How are the other states dealing with this?

You know, that's a good question and honestly, I don't know. But I do understand that there's a prohibition, there's a restriction under the FCRA where credit reports cannot be used, can only be used for a single permissible use. And this use has to be specific to the reason why you're pulling the screening report. So I think that's.

And to be fair, I do not know how the other states have passed laws in this area given that there is this federal overlay, but it is there.

So I think we just wanted to note that for the Committee that, you know, it does raise chain of custody issues when a report is pulled and then if it's reused, you know, especially with today's technologies, you can easily forge or fraud, fraudulently produce a report anyway. So I think that's. That's the concern.

This Bill would require a third party, too. So I don't. I'm not sure. Do you have other. Do you have concerns about the third party forging it?

Not sure. I mean, you know, I think it just raises the issue of chain of custody perhaps.

Okay, OCP in your testimony for the next Committee, because I think we're going to try to pass this through. Do you think you can do some research on how other states have handled this Fair Credit Reporting Act. Sure.

And whether we just add anything to the Bill to make sure that we don't come into conflict with federal law. We'll try to do a little research on our end, but I wouldn't mind that in your next testimony. Okay, we'll do. Sorry, one more question for you. If a landlord.

So there's no teeth in this Bill right now, I think my intention is to add a little bit of teeth into this Bill. But if we did that, and the landlord wanted to appeal a fine for failing to. Allegedly failing to accept a portable, you know, reusable tenant report, and how would that appeal process go

If it's in circuit court? I believe it just be appealed over there. So they'd have to take it, sorry, district court. They'd have to file it into the suit court. Okay.

Presumably it'd be small claims because the amount so little, which is not appealable. Is there any administrative appeal that they can do?

Not that I'm aware of, but I can do some research on that.

Okay, so you're saying the recourse is the court system? Basically, yeah. Okay. Thank you.

For the realtors. So it's my understanding that a lot of times, you know, the applicant fills out an application to rent the apartment or the dwelling and, you know, assuming that it's all accurate, that their income is what they state it is and their debts are what they state they are, they use the credit report to verify what the application stated normally.

And so normally the. The application would be. Would be approved on the contingent that the credit report does validate their. How they assert their financial standing to be. I would imagine that this could easily be done.

But when the realtor, the real estate agent, when they go to sign, the police can just pull up on their laptop or their phone, even Experian or wherever, because consumers are allowed to access their own credit report.

So if the realtor pulls up the site, the individual logs into their Asparian account, they can pull up all the data and verify it at that moment without it costing the realtor anything. I would think that's how we work in the real world.

Well, I think the issue could be that when you pull up a credit report, like you personally pull up your own credit report, it's very different than the screening reports that are run for tenant screenings. Right. That it could include criminal history, financial history. It's not the same report type of report. Right.

And it's sort of a higher level of scrutiny that you get. Like when you get a credit report you, you pretty much get your personal credit accounts and a score. Right. But I think in the tenant screening world it's a little bit more, there's more involved in the type of report. And they can vary from, from landlord to landlord as well.

Like what type? So you're saying that landlords have more data on the tenant than the tenants. Gets on the, on the credit screening report?

Yes.

Thank you.

Sure.

Any other questions on this measure? Let's move on to the last measure, HB 1876, relating to mental health. First up, we have Hawaii State LGBTQ Plus Commission, in support on Zoom. Okay, looks like they're not present. Next up, the Hawaii State Department of Health Adult Mental Health Division, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Kevin Camisado, on behalf of the Department of Health. We stand in support, offering comments. Just noting that our testimony, we cited the Supreme Court case instead of the 10th District which would be the overturned decision if the Supreme Court goes through with it.

The department remains opposed to the use of potentially harmful treatment modalities that are not evidence-based or supported by scientific evidence. Thank you very much. We're available for comments.

Thank you. Next up, we have Pride at Work Hawaii, in support.

We stand in strong support of this bill.

Thank you. We have quite a few other testifiers in support, but none indicated they're going to be present. Anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Actually-- Michael Golojuch Jr., he/him pronouns. Yes, I am president of Pride at Work, but I did submit personal testimony. Well, we appreciate the intent of this bill. We do-- we have asked for several amendments.

We do not want to pretend to know what the Supreme Court's going to do nor do we want to lose the other valuable pieces of this legislation. So that is why after discussing with the introducer, we have asked for those three amendments. One is to remove the trigger clause, make it effective upon signing.

One is to remove anything about talk therapy because conversion therapy--so-called conversion therapy--is dangerous, not productive, and something that-- and no matter what form it takes, should be something that we even-- we should be entertaining.

And then the other is clearing up the language in the introduction to make sure that we-- to clear up the bill because we should be banning this non-therapy for everybody, and we appreciate the definition that's provided in the bill. So, yeah. We don't want to-- we don't want to weaken it.

We don't want to also give the implications that yes, talk therapy for conversion--so-called conversion therapy--is fine and it's not. It is form of torture. I do ask anybody who's thinking of voting no against this bill to think about the one person in your life that you love as a child or as an adult.

They put you through this torture to have you-- to change who you are. There is nothing that can change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no talking somebody out of who they are. It just does damage.

That is why I spent eight years of my life working to ban it here in the State of Hawaii and I would hate to see it weakened with the current version of this bill, which I think does that. So that's why if you look-- the commission, Pride at Work, support the amendments-- support some type of amendments, and I was able to, over the weekend, to come up with those amendments. That's why I submitted personal testimony. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Aloha, Chair and members. My name is Jimmy Chen, and I submit my personal testimony-- testament yesterday. And I strongly support this bill. Before I move into Hawaii, I work with survivors of conversion therapy in China, and I saw firsthand how clinic and therapists profit from fear and stigma advertising treatment that offer no scientific basis while subjecting people to forced hospitalization, electroshock therapy, and coercion. This practice on our therapies are commercial exploitation built on discrimination.

The UN Independent Expert on sexual orientation, gender identity called conversion therapy a form of deception, false advertising, and fraud. Even the German health minister emphasized homosexuality is not a disease, and calling it a treatment is misleading. Survivors often experience depression, anxiety, trauma, loss of trust in medical professions, and increased risks of self-harm and even suicide.

Instead of providing care, this practice isolated people from their families and communities and teach them that their identity is something to be fixed. This bill matters because it stops this practice from operating as a purchasable service in Hawaii. It protects consumer from being exploited simply for who they are. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the community to pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Anyone on Zoom?Members, any questions? That's surprising. All right, take a quick recess. Reconvening.

All right, first up on the agenda we've got HB 1849 relating to licensing. Sorry, sorry. Quick recess again.

Did you. Okay. Reconvening.

Sorry, I just had to check with DCC to make sure that they were okay with that memo. Does not seem to be any CFR conflict with HB 1849. So HB 1849 relating to licensing.

We are not going to require a Social Security number or I'm sorry, we will require the Social Security number if the person has a Social Security number. But if not, they can submit an ITIN plus a letter affirming that they do not have a Social Security number per the memo from the Office of Child Support Enforcement.

I'll also defect the date. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, voting on HB 1849. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Representative Chun. Aye. Representative Ilagan. Aye. Representative Ichiyama. Aye. Representative Iwamoto. Aye. Representative Kong. Aye. Representative Lowen. Aye. Representative Marten. Aye. Representative Tam. Present, I mean aye. Aye.

Representative Pierrick Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you Members. Thank you for being present. Next up we have HB 2000 relating to the right to repair. Excellent Bill, thank you to Peter Fritz for that. My Chair's recommendation is to adopt the amendments proposed by Peter Fritz to defect the date. Members, any comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2000. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations? Any no's? Chair, your recommendations.

Thank you. Members, moving on to HB 1753 relating to social media, I'm going to change this Bill a little bit. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the amendments proposed by DCCA. We'll be adding technical feasibility language to the definition of delete and adding a definition of user for the term user, both as proposed by the TechNet testimony.

In Section 2, subsection B on page 3, replace the word erase with delete and clarify that the covered platform timeline for archiving and deletion is per the timelines set it forth in Section 3. We are going to require that the social media company keep the data if subject to a pending investigation.

For the length of the investigation, we're going to change it a little bit. I think the issues and concerns here were social media companies keeping this information indefinitely because sometimes that data is very useful for domestic violence.

In other cases we'd like to require the covered media platform to archive the data, not to make it public, but to archive the data for 45 days after the deletion request is made for potential investigations, but that they must delete the data after 90 days if they're pending investigation and to change the definition of delete accordingly.

We'll also be defecting the date. Members, any comments?

Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB 1753. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any nos? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1511 relating to consumer protection. Chair's recommendation is to add broadening language to all unsolicited mail or electronic mail with certain exceptions for government and otherwise adopt amendments from. Adopt the amendments from. I think our guys missed a section two as well. It goes right from Section 1 to Section 3.

So we'll be putting on the section two defecting the date. Members, any comments? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB 1511. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations, any no's? Recommendation adopted.

Moving on to HB 276 HD1 relating to condominiums. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. Any comments?

Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB 276 HD1. Treasury's recommendation is to pass as is, any reservations? Any nos. Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Let's move on to HB 1513 relating to condominiums. We you know I think we need comments from HGIA, so I don't want this Bill to die. It is a double. We have a little bit of time.

I'm going to defer decision making on this to a later date just so we can get the comments back from HGIA and hopefully fill in that blank amount for the next Committee. So defer for now. We'll be re noticing this on a later agenda. Moving on to HB2188 relating to housing.

Chair's recommendation is to add language that third parties providing these comprehensive reusable tenant screening reports must be FCRA compliant.

I want to clarify that the landlord can request or charge for information that the landlord reasonably requires that is not contained in the comprehensive reusable tenant screening report other than information already providing other than information trying to update information in said report. Also I'm going to add some teeth to this.

I want tenants to be able to enforce it with a $250 penalty against a landlord that refuses to accept a reasonable tenant screening report plus their attorney's fees and costs if they prevail in the matter.

I also want to allow OCP to go after the landlord and if there are three or more violations reported against that landlord within a 10 year period then the fine will escalate to $500 per violation if enforced by OCP. And let's defect the date too. Members, any any comments?

Chair for the vote voting on HB 2188. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any nos? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to the last Item on the agenda, HB 1876 relating to mental health. This is the conversion therapy Bill. So we considered whether to eliminate the trigger for sconis, but the entire purpose of this Bill was based around that decision.

So although I am personally not a fan of conversion therapy at all, I think that taking out that trigger language would kind of defeat the purpose of the Bill. So I'm not going to do that. I do. I am a little concerned about taking out the age restriction, but I do want to change the age restriction.

Right now it's 18, so charity's recommendation is to change it from 18 to 25 years of age to insert a defective date. Members, any comments?

Yes. So I'm a licensed mental health counselor. I'm trained to give conversion therapy. Yesterday at my private practice, I had a bisexual client ask for counseling. Conversion therapy was one of the topics we talked about. Is that something she wants to explore? Making this illegal is ridiculous.

People are allowed to choose what they want when they go to a counselor and counselors should be free to practice how they've been trained and according to their faith perspective. So I'm absolutely going to vote no against this and I hope this Bill dies. How old is your client if you're allowed to take. Probably in her 20s.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'm. I actually think it's appropriate to not have an age limit on this because people come to realize who they are at different ages and in different situations. And sometimes people are desperate in those times and.

And I would hate for them to be preyed upon by somebody who just wants to make a living in this way. So for that reason, I'm going to be voting with reservations on just that. My reservations being the 25 year old cap.

To be clear, we're not mandating version therapy here.

Okay. Any other comments? Thank you, Chair, for your work on this. I will be supporting you in passing this out. I just want to make a statement which is that conversion therapy is predatory and it's fraudulent. Noted.

Any other comments? Yeah, conversion therapy is an option. He did make a comment already. Can I make a second comment? I mean, is it on the substance of the Bill? Okay, a short one. We've got to move on though.

The definition of convergence here. Conversion therapy isn't predatory if it's based on the consent of the client. So if a therapist is giving patient centered care and the client wants conversion therapy, it's not predatory if it's asked for by the client. We're not going back and forth on this.

This is not a discussion forum, but thank you for your comment.

Vice Chair voting on HB 1876. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Reservations? No for Representative Pierick. Any other no's? Okay. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Re-adjourn.

Sa.