Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Good morning and welcome. This is the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection convening our Wednesday, February 11, 2026 public hearing in Conference Room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol.

This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube and in the unlikely event that we experience technical difficulties and need to abruptly end, we will reconvene to address any outstanding business on Friday, February 13, 2026 at 9:30am in Conference Room 229. First up, we have Senate Bill 2431 relating to health Savings Accounts.

First up, Department of Taxation with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Robert Avila. On behalf of DOTAX, the Department stands on its written testimony providing comments and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Tax Foundation with comments.

Good morning, Chair. With the Tax Foundation of Hawaii on behalf of Thomas Yamachika, our President, the Tax Foundation of Hawaii stands on its submitted written comments. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. We also have testimony from the Hawaii Department of Labor offering comments. Hawaii Medical association with comments. Tyler McMurray in support and Clara Krebs in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none. We'll move on to the next measure, SB2797 relating to consumer protection.

First up, DCCA Office of Consumer Protection with comments. Good morning.

Good morning. Melissa Enright, on behalf of the DCCA Office of Consumer Protection, we stand on our written testimony with comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Retail Merchants of Hawaii in opposition. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Member. Nice to see you. My name is Dave Erdman. I'm the interim President of Retail Merchants of Hawaii and Retail Merchants of Hawaii respectively. Opposes SB2797. We have provided written testimony. Retailers absolutely support protecting consumers. But gift card fraud is driven by organized criminal activity, not retailer practices.

This bill shifts the new compliance costs and legal risk onto our businesses, our retailers, especially small retailers, without stopping the criminals. A better approach is stronger criminal penalties and enforcement against fraud networks. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We also have written comments from the Hawaii Restaurant association and supporting testimony from AARP Hawaii. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Members questions? Okay, we'll move to the next measure, SB2946 relating to foreclosures. First up, we have the Hawaii Bankers association with comments.

Good morning, Chair. We'll stand on our Written comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Collection Law section of the Hawaii State Bar Association in opposition.

Good morning. Chair Kole, Vice Chair Fukunaga, Senator Brenton on behalf of the collection log section of the hsba. We respectfully oppose this measure because it. Would create a lot of confusion and. Essentially strip the judicial branch of its discretion to confirm certain judicial judicial foreclosure sales. And we ask that this measure be deferred. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We also have written testimony from the Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii in opposition. Aoao, Lakeview Sands in opposition. Mark McKellar in opposition. The White Credit Union League offering comments. Hawaii Financial Services association offering comments and individual testimony from 123-4567 other individuals all in opposition.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Members questions? Okay. If there are none, we'll move to the next measure, SB2961 relating to insurance. First up, the Insurance Division with comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Matt Sujimore on behalf of the Insurance division, you have our written testimony. I just want to point out ale is typically helps to pay the reasonable increase in living expenses in the event that your home or your property becomes uninhabitable.

Generally speaking, there are two factors that determine kind of the limits on those. It's either the percentage of your coverage dwelling, which would normally be a dollar amount, or a time, a time frame.

So generally speaking, you know that percentage is going to be somewhere between 15 to 30% of your either your coverage dwelling or your personal property coverage. And the time frame depending upon the insurer varies between no time limit to anywhere down to 24 months. So there are.

While we do see certain benefits and we can understand the intent behind the measure, we also do point out that there may be potential implications that might not be so consumer friendly. But happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have the Hawaii Insurance Council with comments.

Good morning, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Leslie Doar. I'm here to represent Hawaii Insurance Council and we stand on our testimony with comments. The L, as Matt explained, does cover additional living expenses or loss.

There are some parts of the bill that we have defined in our testimony that we provided that we just asked for some more clarification on and I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. We also have opposition testimony from Namec and support from Terry Yoshinaga and Johnny Mae Perry or comments from Johnny Mae Perry. Is there anyone else who would like to Testify on this measure. Okay. Members, any questions?

Okay, Seeing none. We'll move to the last measure on this 9:30 regular agenda, SB2948 relating to insurance fraud. First up, Insurance Division with comments.

Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Shelby Taduma. I'm here on behalf of the Insurance Commissioner. And we did provide our testimony with written comments. Just want to point out a few things. So first of all, we do appreciate the intent behind this bill.

First thing, we just feel that some of the definitions offered can be covered by existing statutes. Second, we do request our testimony that the monetary threshold for class C felonies and misdemeanors under insurance fraud remain the same so that they are consistent with the penal code.

And then thirdly, we, regarding the centralized insurance fraud database, we do ask that there be clarifying information regarding public records disclosure requests under 92F. And so other than that, we do stand on our written testimony and I. Am available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Naemic with comments. And we also have supporting testimony from the American Property Casualty Insurance association and comments from the alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on these measures?

Okay. Seeing none, we'll recess.

Okay. Reconvening on this 9:30am CPN agenda to make recommendations on a number of bills. The first is Senate Bill 2431 relating to health savings accounts.

The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments adopting the requested changes from the Department of Taxation, which include a five year limit to claim credit, carry forward removing the aggregate cap and clarifying that the health plan must be written for the areas to be served.

We'll also add a definition for rural and adopt the HMA's recommendation to require transparent reporting. There are also technical, non substantive amendments and we'll defect the effective date of this measure to July 12050 to keep the conversation moving. Is there any discussion, Members? Okay. If not passing with amendments, Chair votes Aye.

Thank you.[Roll Call] The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. The next measure is SB2797 relating to consumer protection. The recommendation here is to pass this measure with the requested DCCA amendments, make some technical, non substantive changes and defect the effective date of this bill to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Okay. If not passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the Members present, any voting with reservations, objections? Hearing none? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure is SB2946 relating to foreclosures. There were no, there was no testimony in support of this measure, so we'll be deferring it. Next measure is SB2961 relating to insurance. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments we will adopt.

Several of the Hawaii Insurers Council requested changes to clarify that the bill's provisions apply when a state of emergency has been declared to remove language allowing ALEX benefits to be applied to a purchase, amend the time for an insurer to advance payment, clarify that the provision of an extensions for additional living expenses expense benefits are subject to policy limits.

We'll also adopt from NAMC the requirement that the request for advance payment by insured be submitted. zero, you know what? We're not going to do that. Never mind.

To clarify that advance payment issued does not alter other terms or conditions of the ALE payment schedule and also to clarify that ALE extensions are subject to policy limits and that ALE provisions do not alter terms and conditions of the ensuring agreement.

There are also some technical, non substantive amendments and we'll add a defective effective date of this measure to to July 12050 to keep it moving. Members discussion. A quick discussion. Senator McKelvey.

I appreciate you keeping this moving. It's important it keeps moving. However, I'd like to note that the term subject to the limit of the policies could pretty much gut the law because the policy could limit it to far shorter than the statutory provisions we're putting in there.

So I hope as this bill moves forward that there could be great detail to look at that language insofar as the effect it would have on the statute. Thank you, sir.

I mean, would you like to entertain a change?

Yeah, that would be great.

Okay, so we'll take out the two policy limit amendments.

Appreciate that. And it's got a defective date, so there's more conversation to be had.

Okay.

So thank you.

Okay. The changes are noted. Any other discussion? Okay. If not. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. Of the Members present any boarding with reservations, objections? Hearing None. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next last measure on this 9:30 regular agenda is SB2948 relating to insurance fraud. The recommendation is to pass with several amendments. We'll delete definitions for claim harvesting and post loss assignment abuse. Adopt the DCCA's recommendation regarding compliance with Chapter 92f and their request concerning consistency of penalties within the state criminal code.

We'll also adopt their recommendation that the requirements of subsection f on page 47 be amended to require coordination with the appropriate Authorities that have regulatory responsibilities over licensed contractors.

Adopt the NAMC requested amendment regarding disclosure of fraud database to NCOIL and make a clarifying amendment that an insurance professional who reasonably relied on information from a third party will not be found to have knowingly omitted material facts. There are also technical, non substantive amendments and.

And we'll defect the effective date of this measure to July 1, 2050 to keep it going. Any comments or concerns? Okay, seeing none passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. For the Members present. Any voting with reservations, objections? Hearing none. Recommendation is adopted.

Okay. We're adjourning. Okay.

We're convening this 9:30am Wednesday, February 11, 2026. Decision making agenda and Conference Room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol to make recommendations on SB 3000, which was heard yesterday. And in this Committee. The recommendation on this measure, SB 3000 is to pass with amendments.

We'll make changes to the preamble for clarity and we'll make amendments to clarify the Attorney General's authority to bring in action under this bill. We'll add a special fund to collect and disperse funds collected from certain civil actions authorized by this bill.

We'll clarify that existing law and court rules control how concurrent actions brought by the AG and HPIA or another insurer may be handled. There's already a procedure for that. And we'll allow the Judiciary Committee to work out the particulars.

There are technical, non substantive amendments and will also defect the effective date of this measure to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN Members present any voting with reservations. Objections here saying thank you. 1. No vote recorded for Senator Awa. All others in the affirmative. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Am joint Committee agenda between the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection and our friends from the Committee on Government Operations to consider one bill. I'll yield to the lead Chair.

All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate not having to do the script. Senate Bill 2258. First up, Department of Education. They have submitted comments, so go ahead.

Good morning. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Committee. We submitted comments to the Department of Education and we'll stand on that unless you have any questions. Questions? Okay.

Yeah. Can we. Can we get your name, please?

Oh, Jesse Suki, Deputy Superintendent of Operations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is we have two individuals testifying. Glenn Kagamida. They have written testimony and support. And Megan Block, individual in support. That's all the written we've received on this measure, is there anybody in the audience wishing to testify? I seeing none. Members, questions of the doe. I have a quick question for you, sir.

One of the changes the bill makes is to amend our local product targets for, you know, AG and schools from the where it is now a calendar year into a school year. Would that be present problems for the Department Insofar as those original, you know, target goals that the Legislature enacted on being met or.

Jesse Suki again, deputy Superintendent of Operations. You know, I'd like to say no, but can I get back to you? I just want to be sure that that wouldn't create any procurement issues on the schedule.

Yeah, if you want to just get back to us on that, that would be great. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Jeff. Oh, anybody else? You're on the lead. I'm so used to you running the show in this room. Any other questions of the Department of Education? Seeing none. We want to go into decision making. We have quorum here.

So I think what we're going to do is we're going to go ahead and we're going to put technical, nonsensical amendments for purposes of clarity and consistency and effective date of 2525. And in the Committee report, we're going to have Ways and Means. This should have also gone to Education. We talked with the chair of the Committee.

They're going to intercept it over at Ways and Means. But to look at the issue of the change of the year that we brought up with the DOE. Any other questions or comments, Members of GBO? If not Vice Chair. 2258 Senate Draft 1. I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation is to pass SB2258 with amendments. [Roll Call] Measures adopted.

Cpn, Same recommendation. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. But the CPN Members present any with voting with reservations, objections? Hearing None. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

And we'll return.

Good morning and welcome to our Wednesday, February 11, 2026. 10am joint agenda between the CPN and AEN committees in room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol. The first measure on this joint agenda is SB2452 relating to climate friendly insurers. First up we have the Insurance division in opposition.

Morning chairs, Vice chairs, Members of the Committee, Matt Sujima on behalf of the Insurance Division. The Division respectfully opposes SB2452. You have our written testimony. But the essential point of it is that we do have major concerns that this will have a significant ramifications upon the authorized insurance market.

And if that were to be the case, the only options left to consumers would be in the surplus and excess market which is not subject to the same regulations and laws as the authorized market and would potentially have a very significant impact on cost of insurance in the state. But happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have written testimony from the Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration offering comments. NAMC in opposition. The American Property Casualty Insurance Association in opposition. The Hawaii Insurers Council in opposition. Brett, call this in opposition. And late testimony from 350 Hawaiian support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure?

Okay, Members, any questions? Okay, we'll move on to.

Sorry Chair. I do have Senator for the, for insurance for the insurance commissioner.

So I guess, I mean I understand there's, there's this, this Bill would cause some disruption but is it really going to cause more disruption than just letting the current system go on as it's going on where we are reinforcing the cycle basically by allowing insurance companies to continue to invest in the very industries that are causing the rates to go up.

I mean I'm all ears if there's a better solution but it doesn't seem to me like it makes any sense to keep the revolt to keep the destruction machine going.

Yeah. So I think Senator, to your point, the Legislature is well within its privy to make the call, the policy call as to if this is the direction that the Legislature wishes to go.

I think the position that the division is taking is simply that the way we read the bill we would put the authorized insurers, the authorized insurance market and this while I think it's fair to say it limits it to the PNC insurers, which is anywhere between 5 and 600.

Theoretically any insurance company could be investing in a fossil fuel company. So the thousands of insurers that we do have, maybe that's overstated the thousand plus insurers that we do have.

The way we read this bill is that it would put all of those insurers in the position of needing to decide do they want to continue to invest in underwrite for fossil fuel companies just generally or do business in Hawaii.

And I think that's the problem, is that we don't know what those insurers will choose decide to do. Obviously, we cannot mandate that insurers stay in the state and right in the state.

And so perceivably, the only option that would be left should there be an exodus of authorized insurers is that we would be left with the excess and surplus market, which again, would probably wind up with us paying a much higher premium than we currently do.

So I think to our point, we are just concerned about the insurance market as a whole. But if that's the decision that the Legislature would like to go in, I mean, we'll figure it out, I guess, as we go.

Yeah, I mean, I guess. I mean, I won't spend a lot of the committee's times here, but that's. We're already having insurance companies pull out of the market because they're afraid of what's going to happen on basically global warming claims. And I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure what the.

It seems like we're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't. I guess if we don't, it seems like that's where we're at at this point.

I think to respond to that very quickly, I think the state of the insurance market right now, I don't think is as apocalyptic in the sense of insurers fleeing Hawaii quite yet. But we do feel that should this Bill go through, that would accelerate the process of insurers leaving.

So right now, yes, we are in sort of maybe a.

It was pretty apocalyptic about 18 months ago. So, I mean, any, I don't, we don't need to argue. We understand each other's point, but I'm just saying there, there are downsides to not doing something too. Thanks. Thanks, Julie.

Members, any other questions? Okay. If not, we'll move to the next measure, SB 3319, relating to hemp. We do not have registered testimony on this measure. Is there anyone online or in the room who would like to testify? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to the AE and lead agenda and I'll yield to the co Chair, Senator Gabbard.

Thank you, Chair. SB2760 relating to invasive species clarifies that the importation of any item or material infested are infected with an insect or other animal disease or pest is prohibited. Requires DAB to adopt rules to designate certain restricted articles to require a compliance agreement prior to importation.

Clarifies that the State is not responsible for any economic loss or damages related to any actions by the Department under Chapter 150a hrs. And also authorizes the Department to administratively inspect any article imported or moved into the state from the continental US or between the islands of the state.

Authorizes the Department to compel the quarantine of certain non agricultural items or materials and allows for certain interim rules adopted by the Department to be effective for up to two years. First up is Patrick Chi from DLNR.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the two committees. I'm Patrick Chee, the Invasive Species Coordinator for the state over at Department line of Natural Resources Resources. This bill, it has a lot in it.

And we appreciate the variety of measures that are in here, including the expanding DAB's, the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity's responsibilities to work with all parts of the University of Hawaii. Currently, they're only working with one of the colleges, the College of CTAHR.

So we also, we also support the banning the import of any materials infested with invasive species into the state, as well as movement of such material between islands and within areas in the state that it does not already reside. So granting DAB the additional authority to inspect those materials and not just agricultural ones.

We really support this part of the measure as well as the Department supports extending the effective period of interim rules from one to two years. And it also agrees implementing civil penalties for this enforcement.

And very importantly, the Department recognizes that DAB has several rules lists and regulations that need updating to operate at full capacity in order to address biosecurity. And the Department supports funding a position to help DAB Plant Industry Division to draft, review and update its administrative rules. So thank you for the opportunity and I'll be here for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Patrick. Next is DAB.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. Jonathan Ho, Plant Quarantine Branch Manager. Yeah, we'll stand on our written testimony in support with some comments about the proposed changes and I'm available for some questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Stephanie Easley from CGAPS.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. And I'm delighted to be here today. We did submit written testimony. I just wanted to highlight a Couple of things, kind of the big picture things and then a couple of little details.

This bill continues the work started by the Legislature in 2024 with Act 231 and then in 2025 with Act 236 of transforming the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Agriculture and biosecurity, of looking at a much broader picture than just agriculture, trying to follow, to the extent possible, the New Zealand model, to look at pathways like what is the most risky stuff that's coming in?

Where is it coming from? What is that material? It allows the Department to inspect anything coming into the state, which, as you know, when you leave the state, USDA inspects everything going out, but they don't provide that same service coming in. This would allow dad to do it doesn't require them to do anything.

It just as they identify pathways, they would have that authority. Act 236 creates this whole new inspection scheme with transitional facilities, private inspectors and private facilities who will be inspecting material coming into the state.

Having DAB have this new authority now while they're working up that new system, which is going to change a lot of different things, makes a lot of sense so they can start looking at that broader picture and the same sort of.

With respect to items moving within the state and items that can be regulated under interim rules, it's not only a plant that might move an invasive species, it might be other material.

I did have a quick chance to look at dab's testimony this morning and I just wanted to note they make a good point that section 150A7 already prohibits insects, pest, infested material from being moved into the state. But when you read it, what that section says is if it violates 105A5, then it's a violation of 105A5.

Thank you, Stephanie. Thank you very much.

I'm here if you have any questions.

Okay, good. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, please come forward.

ALA Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the committees. My name is Nate Duby. I'm the manager for the Oahu Invasive Species Committee. We submitted testimony standing on. Our written testimony was submitted a bit late. I'm here to answer any questions. Thanks.

Anyone else? Members, Any questions?

Well, I guess for Department of Land and Natural Resources and Department of agriculture, in the CGAP's testimony, the point was made that removing the strict liability provisions and moving towards a civil penalty was what they thought was a thoughtful measure. Do your departments basically agree with that?

Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. Well, our Department does, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Senator DeCoite.

So in addition to the position to work on rules, will you be able to implement the bill to regulate Non AG commodities such as building materials vehicles, without additional staff and appropriations?

It would depend. I'm sorry, Jonathan Ho, Plant Quarantine Branch Manager Excuse me. I think it would depend on. How. Broad the scope would. How broad of a scope and where we would do it.

I think to the extent of like, with regards to building materials, the way that I would envision it occurring would be to flag specific types of materials and containers, conduct the inspections to determine risk over time, and then for those particular commodities that do have additional or that are found to be transporting or harboring pests, you would then target those containers more often.

And depending on the amount of those commodities and the frequency of pest infestations, we would then eventually seek to require inspection for those goods. I think to the extent of, with the existing staff, it's hard to say because I honestly do not know the volumes of those materials that are being imported.

And then I think to the extent of, you know, for example, with Maui County and the rebuilding, there will be a lot of that material coming in. So to try to address that risk, I think is going to be something that will be a challenge.

To some extent the Maui staff does, I think in proportion to the amount of imported goods that are currently regulated, they are the most well staffed for, for plant quarantine and they're all housed on Maui. So there is probably a better opportunity compared to the rest of the state.

But I think I. I don't have a really good solid answer.

Do you guys have one treatment in place to treat. To clear it. In other words, is there an entity that exists today? Container comes in, just zap, treat the entire container and clear that container. If would it be lumber, would it be vehicles?

Because as you know, if you look at Molokai, your vehicles, no monobody for fixer vehicles, we send them here. Could be cattle pens going in and out of shipping inner islands. Like how you guys handling that.

But what I'm more concerned about, if there is a treatment that is out there, which my understanding is one of the companies in Maui can treat it and be treating a lot of the stuff on all the islands, but you guys haven't brought that up. Why not?

Yes. So historically with regards to a quarantine treatment, whether it is a requirement prior to movement or it is done in reaction or sorry, as a result of an inspection, we rely on the importer to, to find an applicator that can apply the treatment that would eradicate the pest. So we're not in the treatment business.

No, but you know people that are in the treatment business and. Because when we dealt with the CRB and this was our problem. Okay, CRB moratorium on Molokai, right? Nothing in, nothing out. Correct?

Nothing in, out.

I mean, yeah, nothing in. Yes, correct. But with this legislation should be nothing out as well unless it's inspected and treated, wouldn't you say? Because you don't know for sure if CRB does exist on Molokai or any other invasive.

And I'm just saying this because you guys have done a poor job and looking at those that can actually treat this and I'm going to name it Mid Pacific Pest Control.

They've been treating a lot of this stuff that can literally allow us to move stuff faster than holding up cargo at the wharf, which is what the big beef was that was going to hold up all the cargo stuff. So why, why don't you guys talk about that?

Because if I gotta move lumber from small island like Molokayan, even like Lanai or Maui in this case of the rebuild, you guys are gonna like. I don't know if you guys been watching on news, but all this BS going on, I don't blame the people in Lahaina being pissed off right now.

But you're talking huge amounts of lumber on the rebuild that have set them back. So I really like to know what is DAB actually doing.

So. I guess as it relates to the building materials and treatments, we are, we utilize treatments that are known to eradicate a particular pest. We don't do, I would say like prophylactic treatments.

And so I think to the extent of, I think, for example, with using the building material, we're not quite sure what the pest may be depending, I mean, so I think if we're targeting a specific pest, like for example, if it's like.

So Jonathan, I know the DOT at sniffing guys are using some of this stuff to help treat, whether it be asphalt or whatever. So like are you guys like talking with each other or are we missing the boat? Because we always so late to react to invasive species.

And then we get one big blown up issue like what's happening in the Department here. I don't get it. Invasive species and problem. We saw the imports on the compost. The stuff went down in Maui at Home Depot. You guys was last on scene. We just barely shut that down.

Soon as the thing hit Kaneohe, Senator Keokolole was all up in arms and all right. What I said was, hey, what this gotta be on Honolulu issue. No offense, but what you guys doing, man? What is happening with you guys?

I well aware of Mid Pacific Pest Control treating a lot of this stuff and yet we making rules here, rules there. When it's like we own solution, are we using this solution or not? Well aware that it's nifiness.

So I guess as it relates to what DOT is doing, that's the first I've heard of that.

You guys should talk because you guys all sit down in a cabin meeting. I don't know if your Director is in here or she's out wherever, but come on, you guys, like we're going to be held. They're asking for another year extension on Moloka ecrb.

Like that's a major issue for a lot of the farms and the guys that rebuilding. So maybe you can get back to us later. But I just like, I don't know what you guys doing anymore. Just frustrated with the Department. Sorry, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? I have a question. So I. So I guess it's pretty clear based off of this conversation that when it comes to building materials or Non AG materials, you don't have the capacity to inspect. And so it's a problem area right now that we need to do a lot more work on.

Is that fair to say?

So I would say right now we're probably. So the required inspection of the total, I would say like shipping containers, like sea vessels, we're probably doing maybe 15%.

But you're not looking for, you're not looking in construction materials. I mean you're. That is correct.

Where are you looking? So in the. So the. In 158.5, it regulates, you know, all the articles, you know, plant lumber. Da, Da, Da. So all of those goods are subject to inspection. We're inspecting those. So everything else that's imported into the state is not inspected. We do get referrals. So you know, we'll take action on those.

But. But we're not requiring inspections for non agricultural materials at this time.

Okay. So when it comes to ag materials, your testimony talks about how the provision would remove your discretion. Can you walk me through the. Okay, when with that 15% or whatever it is.

Ag materials. Right. So. The way the statute is written, the staff or the inspectors have some discretion about dealing with a commodity that is infested. So I think the example that I used was. For example. Actually, I don't know if you can use an example. Whatever example I use. But essentially we'll have romaine lettuce, for example.

The lettuce will conduct inspection. The staff may find, like two or three aphids. So prohibition requires nothing. I mean, there's no option. At least. At least my understanding of it. So it would require us to either fumigate, refuse entry, confiscate and. Or destroy. It's one of the options. So right now, the staff have the discretion.

It's a light. It's low infestation. That particular pest will get an identification. Is widespread throughout the state. Right. So to the extent, you know, of requiring a treatment to disinfect it, which is, you know, potentially thousands of dollars and delayed and lost perishability for really no real benefit to overall biosecurity, I think is where we're.

I think where the kind of that. That. That is.

Where. Where does it. Where is infestation or light infestation defined in the statute?

It's not.

Okay. Where does your discretion derive from in the statute? Where is it. Is it 150. Because I'm reading 150A7 and it says it's a violation to bring into the state any plant. Plant product, animal microorganism, or any article infested with pests.

Correct.

And the same. Or contaminated with soil. And the same. Shall be refused admittance. Shall be refused admittance. This is your section. So where does your discretion come from?

That's the policy that we've always used. So obviously it's wrong.

So you're. So DAB's policy. Existing policy is to violate its mandate in 158. 7. And in order to make this all work, you guys have derived discretion. That doesn't exist in the law.

There is discretion. I have to go find. Okay, the discretion comes after it says to move.

I know that, for example, shall be refused admittance and may in the discretion of the inspector, be seized, treated, seized and treated, destroyed or excluded at the expense of the owner. So your discretion is to choose whether to seize the material and treat it, destroy the material or article or exclude it. Refuse admittance.

That's where you get your discretion. So you're telling me that since this bill was passed in 1973, the Department of Agriculture and now the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity has been misreading its mandate in one under the law. Don't worry. I'm not mad at you.

No, no, I. You are. I mean, the words are the words. I. There's. There's no. There's no other way to.

Would you like to Resubmit testimony that corrects some of the assumptions that have been made on this Bill today, given the fact that the depart the State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity appears to be misreading its own mandate under the law.

If you would, for example, like to propose some amendments to take into account the reality that you guys don't have the capacity right now to inspect 85% of materials that come in to the State of Hawaii, but that when it comes to the 15% of what must be high risk materials, because that's where you're dedicating your time, you are employing discretion to allow light infestations into the State of Hawaii in violation of your statutory mandate.

We can try to, and perhaps this.

Might explain for the community and everybody watching why we have an infestation problem across the State of Hawaii.

Do you have an answer for it?

So I guess to the extent of, yeah, we can provide something to try to address it.

Okay. I would also like to note that in multiple sections of your testimony, there are circular arguments being made. For example, on page 4 it reads, the Department believes that on page 30, line 7, hrs. 150A5 subsection, was inadvertently listed and should instead be changed to hrs. 150A5 subsection before.

So there are a number of mistakes in this six page.

No, that one was a correction. Because the.

Yeah, It's a correction. 150A should be corrected to read 150A 5B4. This is on page four of your testimony. So in the. Okay, so.

Yeah, so, so perhaps we should, we should revisit that part. The Bill has. It's, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a correction of the text.

Okay, so you, so you, you can clarify that section as well. There are some style amendments in relation to the misdemeanor sections in this measure that I have questions about whether they should be amended according to your recommendation. Has the Department of Agriculture ever enforced any of these criminal provisions.

In the past? Yes. Not recently? No.

Okay. So I have some concerns about the proposed amendments that are being made to the misdemeanor sections. As the Vice Chair noted, we are trying to decriminalize inadvertent discoveries where the law right now allays misdemeanor criminal penalties to people who import regardless of whether they knew the goods were infested or not.

The bill proposes to make it a crime and increase the penalties for people who knowingly import invasives like snakes, but to make it a civil penalty for people who unknowingly have aphids on their lettuce. Correct.

And so the changes that DAB is proposing in this measure appear to be stylistic in nature, and there is no substantive justification for why they're rearranging criminal statutory provisions.

So again, I'm going to ask that the Department of Agriculture resubmit testimony and reconsider proposing the proposed amendments that you have in this bill that allow your Department to continue to violate their statutory mandate and also propose that the, You know, the penalties being provided, but actually prohibiting the import of infested goods allays blame on the importer.

And I can see how the Department at this point would be uncomfortable with having that written into the statute because now the importers are liable in a separate section of the statute. So I'm going to stop there because there are about eight other sections of your testimony that appear to be erroneously derived or circular in nature.

And it's very difficult for us in the Consumer Protection Committee to consider this bill given that testimony. And again, I'm not upset at you personally, but I have some real questions about the leadership of your Department when they are sending people in here to flatly testify in violation of their statutory mandate.

Sorry, Senator, you know, I just wanted to clarify that one, Circular one, was that on page four of the testimony, was that the last paragraph, the last sentence of the last paragraph?

I mean, if you really want to go into this. No, no, I just. I just want to make. Because I. Why don't we just stop there and we can take this up offline. Yeah. Because I think we should move on. Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah. This is more philosophical, Jonathan. The importance of biosecurity in this state cannot be argued. The importance to the Legislature was glaringly. Apparent from changing the name of Department. Of Ag to Department of Ag and Biosecurity.

Sir, when that was done, have you had a sit down, philosophical discussion in the Department reviewing your statutes and saying, okay, we need to ramp this up? Has that happened since the law has been put. Or the name change been put into effect?

No.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Okay.

Yes.

You know, Jonathan, just for the record, I'm not mad at you. I'm disappointed in the Administration. Yeah. And I know you're doing the best that you can, but, you know, it's unacceptable. Yeah.

Of what's happening here, I, I don't disagree. And I just wanted to say that. Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate you folks saying that, but I understand that you know what my role is and, and we need to fix it. Jonathan, it's. It's not personal. No, no, I, I appreciate it. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Just real quickly, from a total off the street perspective, how do places like Australia and New Zealand deal with things coming in? They import a huge amount of their stuff. It seems that they have a very robust invasive species program there. I mean, how do they deal with it? Say containers of lumber is going to New Zealand.

How would that come into the country? Or what is their inspection regiment as opposed to what's being done here?

Yeah. So last year with the transition facility program, that is a direct essential takeaway from what New Zealand does. Excuse me. And they use, for all intents and purposes, privatized folks to inspect low risk goods.

So they have this very large network to assess every commodity that's being entered into the country and they are able then to label each of those commodities at a certain risk level. And depending on the risk level, the appropriate inspection will occur.

So for example, a low risk good that has, you know, historically not been found to have passed like plastic toys or something from this particular company. They are, you know, it's going to the transitional. Transitional does their thing and it moves. I believe they have.

How's their success record? Just because I know the committee's time is limited.

So they focus pretty much on the vast majority of their resources on prevention. And I think the state is. I think we're not necessarily, I think, doing the same.

Prevention like refusing admittance of infested articles at the port.

Yeah. And I think to the extent, and again, I think kind of, I guess I can't speak to. I don't know why the policy is like that, but I guess to the extent of. I can't, like if we're going to refuse everything. I mean, nobody's going to eat. I think. Right.

I think that's, that's kind of the dirt we were trying to believe in. That country, New Zealand. Right.

And I think so. And again, and I think to the extent of, again, the, the. I think the. Their statutory authority and, and their thresholds. And again, I don't know if they have discretion. Maybe that's where I can't speak to it, I guess that extent, but I don't think it's zero tolerance for everything.

And I think that's unrealistic. I think obviously that's where the statute is.

Do they have a better track record than Hawaii does? Yes, absolutely. So that kind of gets to my point is they have a methodology, an embracement of technology and a system which is heavily focused on prevention.

That should be I think DAB, instead of trying to reinvent the playbook, would go to look at who has the best success record and what the metrics and involvement in creating this system.

So that to Senator Dacoit's issue that everything can be inspected because we have black widow spiders in the hyena thanks to lumber coming in for all those houses you see up on the hill. And so it's happening. The silent invasion happens all the time.

So I just think that hopefully as this conversation moves forward, there can be a look to places where it is working, why it is working and how it's working in a more holistic way approach. Thank you Chairs. I appreciate your indulgence.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, John. So on this measure, SB2760 there were 19 in support, 0 opposed. With 2 comments. We'll move on to the next measure, SB2048 invasive species prohibits the sale, barter or donation of any pest infested item or material. Authorizes DAB to quarantine, treat or destroy pest infested items or materials.

Imposes penalties on individuals who sell, barter or donate a pest infested item or material. First up is Patrick Chi from DLNI.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members of the committees. The Department stands at its testimony in support of this bill. This is in part somewhat a subset of the previous bill. We support the continued prohibition of sale, barter and donation of materials that are both agricultural and non agricultural in nature that are infested with pests. So thank you. I'm here for questions if you need.

Thank you. Next is DAB.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee Department sounds, underwriting, testimony and support here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Stephanie Easley from CGAPs.

Good morning chairs, vice chairs, Members of the Committee. Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. I'll be brief this time. This bill is a consumer protection statute. People do not are many people are very surprised, unaware that they can purchase things that are infested with pests, that there's no prohibition on selling those things.

This bill would change that. And again, it provides a civil penalty, no big criminal penalty, no misdemeanor for someone who violates the provisions. Thank you. And I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else either here online wishing to testify in this measure, please go forward.

Hello Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Nate Duby, manager of the Oahu Invasive Species Committee standing in support of this. Measure and here to answer Any questions from the Invasive Species Committee side of things? Thank you.

Thank you, Members, any questions? So I got a question for DAB Jonathan. Does this bill, does it add any new requirements that go beyond the current law?

Yeah, I mean, yes, to the extent that it's, you know, prohibiting the sale, I mean the clear prohibition doesn't exist. So yes, it does it, that, that, that is created for pests? Yes. I mean, we don't allow it, but it's, it's not explicit in the statute.

Which this does be involved in helping businesses comply.

Oh, yes, we would have to. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, because. Right. The. So the Department stance has always been to work with them to comply as opposed to dropping the hammer.

I think, I think is the Legislature is well aware and we find that that method is far more beneficial for us in the long term because, you know, invasive species and pest issues are things that go on a lot of times into perpetuity and just hammering people from the get go generally doesn't help us long term.

And, but it, and again, obviously, I think with the, the proposed changes in the penalty section, obviously having more flexibility to do that if necessary is beneficial.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Yeah, I have a follow up.

So just to be clear, based off of this, in the last one, the reason, it appears to me, the reason why the Legislature never elected to just say in the law, the way we're proposing here that you cannot sell infested things is because the onus has always been on dab to refuse admittance of infested organisms.

They shall refuse admittance of infested articles at the port. That's 150A7, correct. Right. So wouldn't you agree that we should maybe just try something new like telling the businesses they cannot do this outright since it appears that the Department selectively enforces against them anyway. Okay, well, never mind. We'll just deal with it later. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

I'm good. Okay, we'll move into decision making on this 10:00am joint agenda. Okay. The first measure is SP2452 relating to climate friendly insurers. The recommendation at this point is to defer the measure. I think it's worthy of more conversation, but we'll defer at this point. The second measure on the agenda, SB3319.

The recommendation because there was no testimony, is also to defer, Defer to the AG check.

Okay. And then on SB2760. See. The chair's recommendation, we're going to be rolling this over based on our conversation that we had giving dad the opportunity to look at their testimony and hopefully revise it so we'll roll this over a decision making to Friday, February 13th at 3:05pm here in this room no in room 224.

And then for CPN we'll reconsider this measure on Tuesday, February 17th 10:00am in this room 229.

And then on SB2048 we would like to. The recommendation will be to pass with all of Dab's suggested amendments as well as an amendment to defect the date until July 1, 2050 any discussion?Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair.

For an on Senate Bill 2048 passing with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair you have five in favor thank you Members.

CPN same recommendation passing with amendments Chair votes Aye,

Thank You. [Roll Call] Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, we're adjourned.