House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon, everyone.

We are convening the Joint Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and Commerce, and the Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Thursday, February 19, 2026. 2:01pm in conference room 329. We have one item on the agenda, HB2384 HD1, relating to student athlete compensation. Let's hear.

First up on the testifier list is University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Athletics in support. Sorry.

Good afternoon. Chair Marioshi, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Elliott. I'm the Director of Athletics at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. We are here in support of HB 2384. This is a bill that provides a framework for name, image and likeness policies here in our state.

Name, image and likeness started about five years ago in the college athletics landscape, but only as of July 1st of this current year are we allowed to engage in name, image and likeness relationships with our student athletes directly. So we are very supportive of this Bill because it does things like create policies.

It aligns both institutional expectations with the state expectations in terms of how we do education for our student athletes, how we deal with financial literacy, how we regulate agents, and that we have transparency in reporting around nil.

We've also made a budget request in support of the NIL program at our university, and that budget request is to allow us to engage in direct NIL relationships with our student athletes.

At a hearing last week, we had approximately 15 to 20 student athletes submit testimony in writing, and then some of them were able to appear as well. And I know that that is on the record for you. I apologize. Some of the testimony we submitted to this Committee was a little bit late.

But the student athletes speak to what it means to represent the University of Hawaii, how it allowed them to develop athletically and academically. And we very much believe that through these programs that will help prepare them to be the future leaders in our state.

So we're here to answer your questions and we're very grateful for your support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have University of Hawaii at Hilo, Department of Athletics and support on Zoom.

Aloha Chairs Matayoshi and Tarnas, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee of Patrick Ian, Director of Athletics at University of Hawaii at Hilo. Nice to join you virtually at this time. We will stand on our submitted written testimony in support of HB 2384 and we'll certainly stay online and be available for any questions that you may have.

Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Aloha thank you.

MK Advocacy group In support in person not present Anna Tui Asosopo Individual in support. Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify?

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Cliff Leboy. I'm with Iron Workers Stabilization Fund. And I wish they had this. When I was playing at the university, I would have made a million dollars a year. But I just want you guys to

know that I stand here representing the Iron Workers and all our 9,000 members, and we strongly support this bill. One statement besides that. I wish the NCAA when organized this thing better. When they first launched the NIL money, it made it very hard for schools of our level.

But without this, we might as well shut down the program. We ain't gonna have any football. It's gonna be horrible. And the people in the state of Hawaii is not used to watching horrible football at home. So let's give them a break and see where it goes from here. Support them. They need the money.

And you guys all have a nice day. Any questions? Just. I'll be here to answer. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chair. Sorry I'm a little bit late. Mike Yosua submitted written testimony, but I just wanted to make a few other comments. I played football at University of Hawaii from 1998 to 2001. I like to say those were the glory years because we were winning back then.

We finally got to the point where we have another winning season, we have another winning team. We have a product that people want to see. People want to be able to go and watch the games or watch them on TV. Nowadays, NIL is just the fact of the matter.

You have to have NIL to recruit and maintain kids. We're one of the states where, I think, per capita, we probably are one of the best football states in the whole country.

You know, we produce talent here, and it's important that we be able to keep those talented players, players here in Hawaii, not just for football, but for all sports. I think NIL is a reasonable investment to be able to make the program continue to grow and be able to provide what we need to retain good

talent here in Hawaii. On the flip side, I also represent kids in NIL deals, not here in Hawaii, but in other states. And I've seen a lot of what happens when they don't have good representation. It's easy for a kid that is 18 years old that is now making some real money to get taken advantage of.

So I think this Bill provides a good balance of providing the appropriations for the investment in nil. But also put some parameters around education and providing the support the kids need to make good financial decisions. So I strongly support this Bill, and I hope that you'll pass it. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other testifiers on HB 2384 HD1? Just noting that we had an additional 27 individuals submit testimony and support. Members. Any questions for uh, please.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your testimony. So UH you have athletics, but you also have the performing arts. What makes the actors, the performing arts students at UH different than the athletic students at UH in terms of helping them, giving them resources, such as direct payment?

Um, what. What's changed for us is that NIL is now part of college sports. It didn't exist before for, you know, almost a century of college athletics. Student athletes had to be amateurs. So they pursue their academic career and they compete in athletics, but they weren't allowed to receive any compensation. That has now changed.

And it's changed as a result of numerous steps in society. So legislation in certain states, litigation in many different courts. And now this is what has changed. This is what is different.

And what makes student athletes a little bit different than other students is that in order for us to compete, in order for college athletics to thrive in this state in a way that we believe is really valuable to the overall community, NIL is just now part of the program, and we have to Fund that.

Regarding you mentioned that the landscape has changed. I think you're referring to possibly a case that now allows universities to make sure they're not exploiting these student athletes by profiting from their names, image and likeness. But in fact, the.

The minimum threshold is that, from my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that they can't profit, so they need to send the money to the student athletes. The profit. Right. So do we actually, given our television broadcasting, I don't know, whatever kind of revenue you generate or the university generates from these sports games.

Is there a profit?

Is there a profit? The tricky part is some sports do generate a profit, but most do not. So we have a couple of programs here that, on an annual basis, like our football team, like our volleyball team, that do generate more than they cost.

And that is really what you're referring to as part of this House settlement, which is House B, ncaa, is that the. The courts essentially have concluded that we should be sharing those dollars back to our student athletes.

So that's what we're recommending as well. So. Okay. Just wanted to. Okay. And then. And then my other question is regarding the Bidding that could happen. I mean, if. How are we ever going to outbid these other universities? You know what I mean?

If we start this bidding war and are you going to keep coming back asking for more and more? Because I feel like it's just going to keep going up and up and I don't know how we're ever going to compete.

And I hear you, I completely agree with what you're saying. But at the same time, we have created an outstanding program here in Hawaii, not just what's happening right now. Today. We have an incredible history, athletics, being successful here in many different sports. Our culture is strong, our fans are incredible in terms of supporting our student athletes.

And this is a world class institution. So we have so many things to offer that it's not just solely about the dollars. We have to also though, be able to add potential for NIL for our students to stay. And when they think about the coaching, they think about the community, they think about representing the state.

All of that factors into the decisions. We can't compete with every school. There are absolutely going to be schools that have more money than us.

But to compete at our level, to be champions in the Mountain West and the Big west and do what we want to do and what we think is achievable, I think we absolutely can do that.

Members, any questions?

Yeah, I've got some questions. If my other Members are done. How much, how much money has been raised through private. You said NIL started about five years ago. Have you in that five year period of time been raising money for and I payments? So we weren't allowed to.

It was only as of July 1st that we've been able to do this fundraising and provide these payments. So we're getting close to $2 million or between 15 and 2 in terms of what we've raised since July 1.

For nil payments that we are making this fiscal year, our target is to try to raise 3 million total for this fiscal year.

Our ask is for next fiscal year. So that explains why you didn't need policies in place before because you weren't actually allowed to until July 1st. Is that fair? For the most part. This is why it's pressing now. And I'm sorry, you said your target to raise through this fiscal year was how much?

About $3 million is our target and we're doing that through the private sector this year. But I believe the ask here, I mean, it's a blank amount right now, but from what I've been told through your testimony and others, is that you're asking for 5 million for nil.

The other part of your testimony, 10 million is 10 million for the entire athletic program. Right?

So you're asking for another 5 million on top of that. That seems like a large chunk of way. It seems like a lot of money because you guys are only raising 3 million. Goal.

Your goal is to raise 3 million on the private side, which means the state is coming in at almost double what the private side is contributing to this. But also that seems like a 50% increase basically in the amount of money we're giving to UH athletics that I, it's kind of staggering.

I kind of just want you to comment on.

Okay. And the, the 10 million dollar ask is really for the operational sides of running the day to day business. So right now we get a couple million dollars for travel expenses. Travel expenses are over $5 million for us as an athletics Department. And I'm sure we all understand why that is.

We would like to increase the nutrition and the food that we're able to provide to our student athletes so that we can fuel them to be competitive. We'd like to invest more in academic support, technology, physical health, mental health.

So that's where the $10 million comes from in terms of bolstering those programs to create the best possible student.

And I'm not commenting on whether the $10 million is well spent. All those things sound like very worthy goals. It's the $5 million that I'm concerned about. It seems like a lot of money. And Unlike the other $10 million being spent, this $5 million would be, I believe the Bill doesn't have language explicit for that.

I think we're intending to put language in there for that. But my understanding is that at $5 million, most of it is going to go towards paying student athletes directly through nil payments. Is that correct? That's correct.

Okay, so this is public money, this taxpayer money going directly towards student athletes, not necessarily for books or tuition or housing. I mean a student athlete could take this money and buy, they could go to Vegas and gamble it away. I mean, is that fair?

They could, it would be their choice. We intend to provide financial literacy courses and you know, other support around the decision making so that the money is either saved or well spent. But it would be their choice.

It would be their money. And I do really appreciate that part. The part of this Bill that requires the University of Hawaii to set forth policies to give more financial literacy, tax information, financial management agent representation. I think that's all great.

I really like US Funding that That's not us giving taxpayer money directly in basically cash to students. To me, I mean, it's. I understand that it's more of a contractual relationship that you'd be entering into them with. Do you see any procurement issues coming up with this?

So we are. We are in that contractual relationship right now. So we already have these NIL deals with our student athletes that has been fully vetted through the General counsel's office, and those arrangements would be consistent going into next year. You know, again, we are. We are fundraising to meet these obligations right now.

What we are hoping going into the next year, year two of this, it is more of a private and public combination partnership where we continue to raise dollars and we have some funding from the state. The reality is, is that if we don't have nil dollars, then our teams will not perform student athletes.

We will not be able to retain and recruit student athletes to be competitive programs. And when the teams are successful, we do believe the return on investment is significant. So you're right. It is a $5 million request of public funds to put into the program.

We are investing right now, also privately funded, in an economic impact statement and study, and we believe that will show.

We have one from 2014 that shows a significant benefit to the state economically, both in China, jobs that are created, dollars that are then spent in the state by all the people that are connected to college athletics here when they come to Hawaii or when they're working in this field. And we want to update that.

We're hoping to have that by the end of next month, and then we can show some real data that this is. We do believe this is a really wise investment for the overall good of the state.

So for a university of like, size and maybe, like, athletic aspirations is 8 million. I mean, if we give you 5, you meet your goal and raise another 3, that's 8 million total. Where are we in terms of other university of universities of about the same athletic prowess?

Yeah.

So the 3 million is for this year. So that will be. That'll be spent. That'll be gone as we look into next year. To your point, if we could raise another three or whatnot, that would make us competitive at the level that we're at.

The schools who are at the Power Four conferences or the SEC, they've already all committed to a $20.5 million investment in NIL across the board. All 60 of those schools have said that's what they're doing.

And then some of them are actually doing dollars on top of that 20 million but at the power, at the group of six level, which is where we're at in the Mountain West, we believe the right ratio is around that 5 million dollar number for next year.

Are other states contributing public dollars to NIL for their public universities?

But we're one of the first universities to come in to ask for it for next year. But what they're doing is figuring out how to supplement their budgets, if you will, to cover all of their costs. Whether or not they're putting the dollars directly into nil, we will learn that as we go into these future years.

But one of our peer institutions, New Mexico, who's in our conference, their Legislature just allocated an additional $12 million to New Mexico and $11 million to New Mexico State in this legislative cycle. So that's a school that's in the Mountain West with us and they can

use that to athletics. To athletics, exactly. And you said that there, that money, that 12 million is able to be used for direct NIL payments to their athletes?

No, I think it's for them to supplement their Department and their needs. But then they can use, you know, they would be able to use their other dollars that they fundraise for for nil. At the end of the day, there are a lot of expenses, whether operationally.

So you're saying it's just kind of. I mean, they're shifting it around. Right? They'll give them $12 million instead of raising money to fix the stadium, they'll put that money in there instead of. And use that fundraise money to pay NIL payments. Yeah, I don't know.

I don't want to speculate, but it just, it shows that there is a. I was just trying to say that there's a comparable institution where the state has now said that we will invest additional dollars into your program.

And that's a little. I mean, it's a little bit of accounting there. But why aren't we doing it the same way? Why are we doing $5 million to be directly given to student athletes? Why aren't we doing the same thing other universities are doing with that payment structure and scheme?

I think that we have tried to be basically outline what we think the economic model is for us to be successful in this state going forward.

If we had an additional $10 for our overall operations and an additional $5 million for our nil account, then we believe we can meet our objectives, which are to graduate our student athletes, give them outstanding experiences, bring our state together and support these programs and have a good NIL program and Graduate students at a very high level.

But if I don't want to forget about that, because the NIL dollars play a role in having students make the decision to stay. And that is absolutely. Our objective is for students to stay here, be here all four years, and get their degrees.

So we've just tried to outline what we think is the right budget for this Department to meet those objectives.

Understandably. And it might be somewhat of a facade, but I'm just. I am uncomfortable spending public taxpayer dollars to go directly to student athletes. In that sense, maybe I'll get over it, but it sounds like other universities are not doing that directly. They're. They're funding it through, like you said with New Mexico.

I'm just wondering why the payments are structured this way in Hawaii rather than other. In other states, the payments are structured the same.

The university is doing direct contracts with the students. It's just how you get the money into the. They're using money raised through booster clubs or whatnot. Rather than us appropriating money directly, the direct appropriation is different. There's an institution out there that, you know, they reported they lost $70 million last year.

So your goal is to raise $3 million for nil, or is that $3 million total that you're raising through all boosters?

Through 3 million for nil? We've already raised about 2 million for our operations. And that's standard in terms of what our expectations have been to be able to just Fund our programs. Able to raise 8 million from.

Is that a normal amount that you could raise from a booster club? We've already exceeded this year what we have normally raised in our previous years.

Okay, but how much is normal to raise? I think our number last year overall. So we weren't raising money for nil, but overall we raised in the $4 million range. So we've already exceeded that total for our operations and NIL for this year. Thank you.

Any other Members of my Committee?

So Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Members, just limited questions, if we could, because we do have to move over to have our hearing. So, Members. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you for what you do. I'm a huge sports fan. I wish we had enough money to give everyone more. But, you know, as I think about the student athlete and they're getting this money, do you have any, like, financial guidance or protection, you know, to help them in their windfall, so to speak?

That's right. Yeah. So we. We already do some education. We have programs throughout the year on financial literacy. But it is our commitment that going into this next year we will build an even more robust financial literacy program. Yes.

Okay. Yeah, we wouldn't want to see them go off the rails with all this money. Thank you. Chair.

Hi. Thank you. So am I getting this right? Our UH universities are Division 2 considered. Division 2? Is that a type of category or something?

So, uh, Hilo competes at Division 2. UH Manoa competes at Division 1.

Okay. And the funding you're seeking is for here, Manoa. Correct. Okay. Because I saw the prohibitions on Division 2, so I just wanted to clarify. This is not asking for division. Okay. That's all. Thank you.

Other questions? Judiciary and Hawaiian affairs Members, just one question, just to clarify. So my understanding is that no other state is spending public money directly on NIL payments to applicants.

I guess what I would say is this is our first year.

You know, I'm just. Other states and I know it's the first year, but is your understanding the same as mine, is that public money in other states is going to defray costs for the programs, the athletic programs, but it's not going directly for payments for the NIL? Yes.

I don't know of anybody who specifically allocated the dollars in that way. I mean, this isn't. This is a topic really for the finance Committee to consider. Is that an appropriate use of public monies and how is it structured from the judiciary and Hawaiian affairs side of things?

You know, I'm looking at how you're protecting the rights of the individuals, student athletes and, you know, and how it's being reported. I'm comfortable with the way you've set that this up in the bill. My question is, do you.

Is the bill consistent with your current policies that you have in place now at the university, or would you have to modify those policies based on the language in the bill?

I would say it's consistent with practice, but we don't have the policies articulated in the way that this bill expects, so that's what we have to do.

So even though you are paying NIL payments now, you don't have a policy at UH for the things that we cover in this bill.

Not.

Not as comprehensive as the bill requests. Yeah. So this bill would actually strengthen your policies by requiring you to adopt the policies consistent with this bill?

Yeah, I think it would strengthen our policies.

Okay. Okay. Because I just want to make sure that the student athletes rights are protected and the public is, and information is disclosed to the public that does not invade the privacy of the individual students. And the way it's crafted, I'm comfortable with the language in here.

And yes, I think the University would have to modify its policies to be consistent. So, other questions, JHA Members. If not, I'll turn it back to you. We'll roll into decision making. Yes, please.

Okay, let's move right into decision making on HB2384 relating to student athlete compensation. Chair's recommendation is to add language to the bill that the funds allocated will, in addition to what is currently established in the bill, will also be used by the University of Hawaii for these NIL payments to student athletes.

That language is not currently in the bill and I just want to make sure that because that's UH's scheme that they're proposing, that the next Committee gets comments on that scheme, which I'm not sure they were getting comments on up to this point because it wasn't present in the bill.

I also would like to add on the Committee report for the Next Committee to look at the payment scheme that UH is proposing for these direct payments to student athletes and consider whether another scheme, perhaps one that's already been adopted by other universities, might be more conducive to the expenditure of public funds. Members, any comments?

Thank you, Chair. I will be voting no based on on the what we heard here today that other states are not directly funding NIL. I'm also concerned with separating out student athletes versus other students who have their names, image and likenesses used on behalf of the university. Also, there are patents that are done through university work.

There are other program. There are other young entrepreneurs doing things. And so I'm. Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this when there are so many other needs right now in our state.

Members, any other comments from CPC? Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2384 HD1, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. For JHA, the recommendation is the same pass out with an HD2 with the recommendations that Chair CPC has just described. And I share his concern that we're passing on this in the Standing Committee report as well for Finance Committee to look at questions or concerns. Members? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2384 HD1 with amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. We're adjourned.

The 2:05 agenda for the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. It is Thursday, February 19, 2026 Conference Room 329. It's about 2:30ish. We have a couple items on the agenda today. First, one or two of them are DM. First up, we have HB 644 HD1 relating to single use plastics.

Hawaii Food Industry Association in opposition on Zoom.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hi. Hawaii Food Industry Association will stand on our testimony in opposition. While we would support a statewide initiative, this bill would essentially, essentially ban all available serviceware, including compostable serviceware, because we do not have a composting site to take products on any island currently available. For questions, if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you. Biodegradable Products Institute in opposition on Zoom.

Yeah, hi, this is Michael Doshi. Can you hear me? Yes, Aloha, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Doshi. I go by my last name, Doshi. I live in Waialu. Hello. I'm the North Shore and I'm here on behalf of BPI Biodegradable Products Institute, North America's leading certifier of compostable products and packaging.

We appreciate the work that has gone into HB644 and especially the inclusion of PFAs restrictions for reusables and refillable foodware. It is critical that all food contact materials meet the same safety standards. However, we respectfully oppose the bills currently drafted as amended.

The bill removes compostable food packaging entirely and differentiates between material types in ways that are not grounded in scientific standards. Certified compostable products, whether made from fiber or compostable bioplastics, must meet compost performance standards and are independently third party certified. BPI certification uses ASTM D6400 and D6868 standards.

While going a step further to strictly prohibit intentionally added PFAs by excluding certain certified compostable materials while allowing other materials, the bill creates confusion in the marketplace, undermines investment in composting infrastructure, and risks replacing verified non persistent products with alternatives that may contain persistent additives such as adhesives, dyes or coatings.

If Hawaii's goal is to reduce persistent chemicals and build a zero waste future, the policy should focus on performance and certification, not material type.

We urge the Committee to reinsert a clear definition of compostable required third party certification that meets appropriate standards and ensure Certified compostables are treated with consistency and remain a viable part of a zero waste solution. And certified compostable products and composting are essential to divert food waste from landfill, reduce methane emissions and build healthy soils in Hawaii.

And so for these reasons, we respectfully ask the Committee to hold or substantially amend the bill. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Mike Ewell, Individual in support on Zoom. Not present. Not present. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Ted Bohlen, on behalf of the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and the Climate Protectors Coalition, I first want to thank the Committee. I should have said aloha, Chair Matayoshi and Vice Chair Grandinetti and Members of the Committee. I want to thank the Committee for hearing this bill.

I think it's an important bill both in terms of trash and in terms of the PFAS element. I apologize to the Committee that whenever I come up here, I'm either talking about cesspool or trash or waste of some kind. And it would be nice if I could talk about something more positive.

But we have real waste problems here and they certainly extend to foodwear. We have trash on our beaches. It doesn't come all domestically, but it would be a big help to get rid of some of it.

This is a narrow bill in the sense that it only applies to businesses where food is prepared on premises, if not water bottles from Costco, if not most supermarket stuff. We've also put it. The bill has also included a delay until 2028, which gives people some time to transition.

There was some testimony that we need to delay until the needs assessment is completed. That was passed last year in House Bill 750. That was really for a different purpose, which was to enable the counties to prepare for a more circular economy and not necessarily related to food, food ware and pfas.

So I would say this is a good bill. I'd like to see it passed. The removal of composting is appropriate, I think, and there are exemptions in there for emergencies and for other things that are necessary for the people who are going to be affected by this bill. So thank you for the opportunity and

I am available for any questions if, if there are any. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other testifiers for HB644 HD1?

Chair and Vice Chair. Matt Cronin Department of Health Department of Health Services Division this bill was prime previously testified by kind of a different part of our House, which was a solid waste program. When it's transferred under 321 it brings it largely to kind of our house, which is is overseas restaurants and food establishments.

We send out a written testimony with comments. We obviously support certain ideas of reducing waste and plastic and impacts on our environment. You know, we support all of those. We do have questions always about implementation and impacts from implementation, such as if we have to test for pfas or if you know, how ultimate implementation is given.

Kind of the breadth and the broadness of some of the definitions here. To answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Hello, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Kelly Isego. I'm with Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources. And the Department stands on its written testimony basically recognizing the negative impacts of PFAs, but deferring to Department of Health on, on the implementation of the bill.

Thank you. Any more testifiers for HB 644 HD? One seeing none. Members, any questions?

Sorry, I have one question for Department of Health. I believe so.

We'd heard, I'd actually heard from the Pills of Trust producer that there was that and Mr. Bohlen testified to this as well or hinted at this in his testimony that there was a some kind of working group or a study or something underway to deal with some of this.

Can you kind of tell us about what the study does and when it's meant to conclude?

Yes. Chair, Again, Matt Cronin, Department of Health. You know that the needs assessment as what's being referred to part of the circular economy for waste is really again, part of a different part of our house.

But I can share more more broad idea of what it is and as Mr. Bohlen may have said, you know, some of the intents were not specifically, I think addressing, you know, single use pasta wear, but really it's kind of the life cycle and process for waste generation and what's causing what we need infrastructure wise in order to accommodate these waste streams that is underway.

Again, it's a different part of our House. If they have specific questions, I'll take that back. But in our testimony we had indicated that it's our preference at Department of Health to kind of let that go forward. It covers some of the products included in this bill.

So we feel like once the needs assessment is completed, then we have a better understanding of implementation, but also prioritization about what these kind of products are in the waste stream. Okay. When is that supposed to conclude? I believe it's in our testimony from the previous one, but next year. 27ish.

Thank you. Members. Any other questions? We'll take a brief recess.

Recess. All right, reconvening.

We have one item on the agenda today. Oops. Three items on the agenda today. Two DMS and one item, one new item. So let's start off with HB664.4HD1 relating to single use plastics. I was in discussion with the bill's introducer.

We've decided to go forward with the PFAs ban portion of it, but we're going to be removing the language for basically the rest of it pending the study. I think we, if we've already have kind of a working group going forward, we want to see what comes out of that.

So we will be limiting the PFAs prohibition to single use foodware plastics because of the bill title amending page 6 subsection C to clarify that the packaging being regulated must contain plastics that also contain PFAs in order to resolve a potential title issue. Deleting language related to the Prohibition 4 plastic foodware. But noting that we are waiting.

I just want to note that we are waiting for the Recycling Waste Working Group to conclude deleting the word food vendor from page six, lines 18 to 19 for clarity. And on page seven adding the word use to line one and sale and use to line three just again for clarity. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 644 HD1, Chair's recommendation is to pass our amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is about.

Okay, thank you. Members, we have two more items on decision making only. First up, we have HB2612 relating to mortgages. We have a lot of discussion on this bill. I think there is some factual question remaining on whether the.

Whether a mortgage prior to the 2018 decision by Judge Leonard, whether you could foreclose on a note that had the six year statute of limitations run already. We've been in touch with both sides. I'm still kind of waiting for clarity on that. I do want to, since this is last day, I do want to keep this moving.

We're going to advise the next Committee though to look into that and I will personally be looking into it as well, just to save our friends in JHA a little bit of trouble. So Chair's recommendation is to defect the date and keep this moving for now. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2612. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of sorry. Representatives Lowen, Marten and Pierick. Are there any noes any reservations? Chair, your recommendations.

Thank you Members. Last item on the agenda, HB 1782 HD1 relating to artificial intelligence for the protection of minors. Man, AI is. AI is scary right now. It's really kind of victimizing a lot of our kids.

I think so very important that we put regulations in place in order to protect especially minors who are much more susceptible to these kinds of manipulations. I do like this bill a lot and I want to thank the bill's introducer for her hard work on it.

I do want to do our chance recommendation will be to be amending this to allow OCP to also enforce this Bill. In addition to the AG's office. I also want to adopt some of the AG's proposed amendments namely that for hrs placement, transparency and disclosure and crisis intervention representation.

I believe those parts are important in the Committee report. We'll also be suggesting an effective date of July 12027 which is a little bit later than the original Bill intended in order to give AI companies time to implement the change.

I am also going to ask the Next Committee in the Committee report to look into whether AI communication is protected by free speech either at the corporate level or whatnot. And also the implications of that.

Whether what the AI says and the consequences of that are going to come down to the corporations that are hosting the AI platform Members. Any comments? Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1782 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absences of Representatives Lowen, Marten and Pierick. Are there any noes any reservations? Reservations for Rep. Iwamoto. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. We're adjourned.