House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the hearing of the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. My name is David Tarnas. I am the chair of the Committee. Very fortunate to have Vice Chair Poepoe here and our Member, Mr. Garner Shimizu. Other Members will join us presently. It is Wednesday, February 18, 2pm in Conference Room 325.

Thank you to everyone for being here today. We have a lot of testimony, so I request that people limit their testimony to two minutes per testifier. I'll ask you to summarize at that point if you're not already wrapped up. We have a new microphone system in the room here. You can see the green lights up here.

Those are the mics. They pick up everything, including side conversations and nervous clicking of pens and all that. So if you could just keep that in mind. But when you're testifying, just use your outside voice, project, articulate, and everyone should be able to hear you just fine.

If you're on Zoom and you're testifying, please keep yourself muted and your video off until you testify, at which point, turn it on, give your testimony and then turn it off when you're complete.

If you have technical issues, you can use the Zoom chat function to communicate with our excellent technical staff here who will do their best to help you out. If you are disconnected and you're zooming in, don't panic.

Try to rejoin us as soon as you can and then our technical staff will let me know that you're back and I'll try to fit you in to finish your testimony.

If there's a power outage in the building here and we have to reschedule the test, the hearing, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you all know when we're meeting and about what. When on Zoom, if you're testifying, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images.

And everyone who's testifying, I would just request that you refrain from profanity and uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. This is already a hard enough process we go through here. Let's respect each other and move through all the bills on the agenda today. Okay?

First up, we have House Bill 1790, House draft one relating to policing. This measure requires law enforcement agencies and law enforcement oversight agencies to collect and report certain data regarding law enforcement, stops, uses of force and complaints to the White Crime Lab, affiliated with the University of Hawaii.

It requires the Hawaii Crime Lab to collect and publish incident level information, and an annual report on the data collected requires the Department of Attorney General to adopt rules in coordination with the Hawaii Crime Lab. So first up, we have the Office of the Public Defender, Hayley Cheng. Welcome, Ms. Cheng.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. Members of the Committee, I am Hayley Cheng. I am the First Deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. And we have submitted testimony, testimony in support of this measure, I believe last session we also supported a similar measure.

And it is because as the agency that represents most criminal defendants throughout the state of Hawaii, we cannot emphasize enough to this Committee how important data collection is.

We believe it is necessary for public transparency for the criminal legal system as well as for law enforcement generally, helping to identify trends, disparities and things such as use of force, mental health crises, reasons for detainment, and all of the things that the Bill takes into consideration is important and critical to help us improve our existing system.

So thank you for the opportunity to comment and I will be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Next we have University of Hawaii Denise Conan, not present in support. Next we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Ms. Woodward, welcome. Floor is yours.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. OHA is in strong support of this Bill and appreciates the intent to strengthen accountability and public trust in law enforcement agencies. We feel this is especially important for our beneficiaries who are disproportionately represented at multiple points within the criminal legal system.

And we are offering some amendments which add to the definition section Hawaiian as defined in Section 102 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and Amendments to require data disaggregation with a distinct category for Hawaiians both alone and in combination with other racial or ethnic identities.

This is because existing data sets often lump Native Hawaiians together with Pacific Island, Pacific Islanders and or Asian Americans, which makes it extremely difficult to determine the true impact on the community and for OHA to advocate accordingly. So appreciate your time and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Mr. Mike Lambert, Department of Law Enforcement. Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon, sir. Mike Lambert, Director of the Department of Law Enforcement. Chair, Vice Chairman of the community. So we do support the intent. We do acknowledge that implicit studies are important to ensure public safety and the trust that goes with that. Being in law enforcement for 20 plus years.

The reason why I want this study to occur is because I'm confident that we're not going to see the type of trends that we see in the mainland now. Acknowledging that implicit bias exists in all human beings and it needs to be acknowledged within law enforcement.

We also have to acknowledge the fact that implicit bias is a subconscious thought, meaning that, you know, it may not be known to us, which is something that we need to overcome.

Some of the only concerns I really have with this Bill is the aggressive timeline and the fact that it would hold us accountable to penalty under lawsuit. I really hope that we can kind of push back the timelines actually. This is the first time I've actually spoken to Ashley.

But I would really like to understand the methodology used on the mainland and making sure that when it translates here it's culturally appropriate. The reason why I bring that up is that I'm Native Hawaiian, you know, law enforcement, 20 plus years and I do see that Native Hawaiians are over represented in many categories.

I can tell you that right now that every Native Hawaiian I arrested broke the law. Right. And it's unfair if I am a non Native Hawaiian officer to potentially be viewed as having an explicit bias against Native Hawaiians simply because I'm different.

So I would really like to work at Hawaii Crime App to understand and to make sure that the methodology acknowledges the fact that sometimes it's the officer just looks different from the person that they enforced upon and it's more important that they did their job versus worry about.

Well, I gave too many Native Hawaiians tickets today, so I don't want to be accused of something. So I just really want to have further discussions. But again, I do want the study to be conducted but with maybe less aggressive timelines. Open here for questions.

Thank you, Director Lambert. Next we have Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. I'm Lieutenant Joseph O'Neill. I'm the acting captain of the Honolulu Police Department's Information Technology Division here testifying in opposition to House Bill 1790. I would like to briefly just explain that opposition. We submitted written testimony, but the opposition is not to the intent of the Bill.

In fact, reading the first two paragraphs of the Bill, it talks about accurate data. So accurate data is one thing. The opposition is that this Bill asks for over 20 data sets that we do not collect right now on traffic stops or interactions with the public.

Creating a system to record these data sets would increase the amount of time the officers have to actually sit at a traffic stop or remember after the traffic stop and put into some unknown system or survey. Now if you with the volume, the operational volume we have of traffic stops and interactions which could be around 100,000.

Even if this survey could be filled out in one to three minutes, you're talking about thousands of Hours of officers typing into a survey. Now I deal with that all day in information technology. I love sharing data, I love working with organizations to get data.

But the way it's designed, this is going to have a very negative impact on the officers who are doing traffic enforcement. Mostly I can tell you that when you're on the side of the road and you have a car pulled over, trying to remember all data points that are in this Bill is going to be very difficult.

The perceived categories alone, if we had paper in this room and we all wrote on the paper what we perceived each other's ethnicities to be, it would all be different, all be all over the place. So the data is going to be skewed.

And not only that, all of the other data points that they have to remember, how many people are in the vehicle, the disabilities, the mental health, the, the ethnicities, all the races of the other officers that showed up at the traffic stop.

Now, a lot of times when you're on a traffic stop and you're short staffed, there's priority one calls, we call them, that happen during the traffic stop. You have to break away or you have to issue the citation.

If that officer doesn't stop and fill out that survey now, they're going to have to remember, go back and put all of that in accurately and that's going to be difficult. I think a better approach would be to work with organizations that want this type of data and not have it framed the way it is.

It's going to be very difficult to do. It's not about opposing it because we don't want to be transparent. It's about that. This is going to be difficult to implement and I'm here for questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next. Kobe Chalk, Alzheimer's association of Hawaii on zoom. Not present with comments. Next. Liam Chin, Hawaii Justice Rising on zoom. Yep. Right.

Thank you. Yeah. I'm testifying today in strong support of this Bill. Many states already collect this data with minimal burden. There's federal grants available to support staffing, technology and training. Officers in other states typically spend under one minute entering stop data.

And it's important to note that a lot of the 20 categories will not be present during many of the stops. So you're not obligated to fill out non-relevant categories. For example, if there's no weapon present, and so forth.

I think it's important to point out the basics here, that Hawaii is one of very few states that doesn't collect consistent statewide data on basic police activity. So we have a lot. While this may seem burdensome at the front end, we do have the vast majority of other states and their track record to look at.

And of course, we should calibrate it to the local conditions here. But it absolutely can be done. And we don't even collect uniform data at the moment on police stops, use of force, misconduct complaints, or the outcomes. And the result of this is that lawmakers lack evidence to evaluate policing policy.

This isn't just about, you know, racial disparities and data for the sake of it. It's also just about evaluating police performance generally. And ultimately, it's going to help the public view policing as more fair and effective if it's implemented correctly.

This matters because traffic stops are the most common way that Americans interact with police, and that includes here in Hawaii. But yet we collect very little data on this, despite, again, it being the most common form of interaction with police for the public.

And prior HPD use of force data showed significant not only racial but socioeconomic disparities, including towards houseless individuals and so forth. But that reporting has been inconsistent and hasn't always been taking place, and it needs to take place. And then lastly, complaint data helps identify patterns and reduce costly misconduct litigation.

Just over the last 10 years, the city and County Honolulu has paid between 30 to 45 million in misconduct lawsuits related to policing. So this is all around a win. And again, we're not reinventing the wheel here or doing anything radical. This is something that should have been done a long time ago.

Appreciate your time and appreciate working with HPD to make sure they can. They can implement it in a way that works.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chinn. Next. Abby Seitz, Hawaii Appleseed center, in support. Next. Josh Frost, ACLU, in support. Welcome, Mr. Frost, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, My name is Josh Frost. I'm a policy advocate at ACLU Hawaii. You have our testimony. I just wanted to comment on a couple of things.

You know, at a time when, rightly or wrongly, skepticism towards law enforcement is on the rise, maybe now more than ever, transparency is important. Also, we know that good data breeds good decision making and good policy, which is also something a lot of the other testifiers have commented on.

So for all those reasons, we support the Bill and hope that you'll move it out. It's not in our testimony, but I wanted to state that we would support the amendments offered by OHA as well.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Shelby Davis, Measures for Justice in support. Josh Parker in support on Zoom. Mr. Parker, floor is yours. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. My testimony in support of HB 1790 HD1 draws on our work with different states across the country on enacting and implementing policing data collection laws. Data is essential for identifying the policies that further public safety and those that don't.

But currently, Hawaii doesn't require its police departments to collect some of the most basic data that many other states have collected for years and years. For instance, over 20 states, big and small already require all their police departments to collect stop data, including Alabama, California and Montana. Hawaii is not among them.

Inputting the data required following a stop would not meaningfully prolong the encounter. Importantly, as was said in prior testimony, nearly all the data points can be completed after the officer terminates the encounter, including the reason for the stop, whether there was a search, etc. And many of the data points, as Liam Chinn testified, are conditional.

If no search is conducted or no weapon is drawn, the data points in those categories need not be addressed.

It is unsurprising then that in Connecticut, if you look at Ken Barone's testimony, who runs out of a university like at an entity like the Crime Lab data Collection in Connecticut, he says in his testimony before the Higher Education Committee that inputting this information typically takes less than 90 seconds with much of the information auto populated.

And if you look at even Mike Lambert's testimony that he submitted to the Committee, he says that he has, you know, spoke with Ken Barone and learned about that information in Connecticut.

And I'm sure an Ashley Rubin at the University of Hawaii is also working very closely with folks in other states, including Ken Barone to ensure that when this is implemented, there is a meaningful delay before it's implemented to ensure rulemaking and working with kind of other states that have already done this, that Hawaii is not reinventing the wheel and taking advantage of learning lessons from other states and how to ensure that this can be filled out quickly and efficiently without prolonging.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for hearing my testimony and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. And just to be clear for the public and the Members, Josh, you want to tell us the organization that you're with?

Yes, I am with the Policing Project. I'm the Deputy Director of Policy at the Policing Project at NYU School of Law.

New York University. For those who didn't recognize the acronym. Thank you, Josh. Next, Ken Barone, Connecticut Racial Profiling Prohibition Project in support. Next. Ashley Rubin, Dr. Rubin, Hawaii Crime Lab, University of Hawaii.

Good afternoon thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Dr. Ashley Rubin of the Hawaii Crime Lab. I've submitted written testimony. I'm going to go ahead and stand on that, but I will add that I'm eager to work with law enforcement agencies and officers.

If the Bill is passed, I would plan to do ride alongs or ask permission to do ride alongs, see how the data are currently collected, and basically work on a process to make it as seamless as possible, maximizing officer safety and also keeping an eye to data that's going to be useful for the various law enforcement agencies as well.

So I've submitted my testimony. Thank you very much for the opportunity, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Before you go, Just because Dean Conan is not here, Denise Conan, Dean, College Of Social Sciences, in their testimony, it specifically suggests that we, instead of using the name Hawaii Crime Lab in the Bill, that we name the Social Sciences Research Institute, which is a part of the College of Social Sciences.

And you're in line with that recommendation?

I'm in favor of it.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, that's all. We received a total of 18 testimonies, 15 in support, one in opposition, two with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1790? If not, questions? Members, any questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair, HPD, can I ask you a question? I can understand the difficulty that you expressed collecting the data. Do you folks do it all manually, writing things down?

So right now we have a records management system that we call the case reporting system. That's where we input lot of our typed reports. We don't have, if you're asking manually, the judiciary, we still write manual tickets. The department's working on an E Citation program, but we do handwrite our tickets. Yeah.

Have you folks, can I ask, have you looked into, like, technology, as Director Lambert suggested, checking other jurisdictions and what they do and how we might be able to incorporate that into our system to make it better.

So, that's a good question, sir. So E citation usually makes most jurisdictions better. It makes traffic stops faster, and you can have more fields. The judiciary is very strict about what can actually be on the citation. But there's other fields that can be implemented into the system easily with E Citation. Yes.

Are we looking to get that?

Yes, we're. The Information Technology Division where I work has actually built an E Citation program that is being piloted in our Traffic Division right now. So we didn't have funding this year to buy E Citation printers for a greater portion of the Department to more widely roll out the program. Yes.

Okay, last question. Okay, so if you, the pilot program proves to be successful, you're able to implement it. Do you see a problem with collecting data as this Bill is requesting?

So I don't see a problem with collecting data. I do like data. I think more data helps the community and the lawmakers. I just, I think that the, how that system's designed, that's, that's how much time it takes to input this stuff.

So counting, like I said, the data points, looking at other states, I know that some of them don't allow to put unknown or undefined. You have to actually make a selector in some of these similar type programs. So like someone mentioned the weapons.

You select the weapons, maybe the other fields will be if there's no weapon, they would say none and fill out some of them. So it's basically the design of that system. But being the acting captain Information Technology Division, I can tell you that our software programmers are already short staffed. So building that system out would be complicated.

Right. With the data set that's in here. And that's why I mentioned that providing data that would be helpful, but working as a partnership would be what's, you know, doable and what's not doable better than just dictating set data set.

But the E Citation system could be used to help with that. Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions. Rep. Garcia.

Thank you. Chair for HPD as well. The Bill requires that all reporting shall be made publicly available. Is the current data that you folks collect on citations, whatever, is that made publicly available currently.

So that Data through information requests 92f we can provide anything regarding that, but we don't publish it on a website right now. So this Bill wouldn't make you folks publish. I think this Bill requires us to provide the data to the White Crime Lab and then they publish it. Right. Okay, got it. Thank you.

I think that's correct, yes. Any other questions, Members? Just one question, sir. I heard an interview with our new police chief in Hawaii county who is planning on rolling out, you know, tablets that they use. That's what you're talking about, that the patrol officers would use?

Well, Cami tablets, our program is device agnostic, so it can be used on tablets or Windows. So patrol officers usually typically have a computer like the one over there. It's a laptop. Some of the solo bike officers have tablets. Yeah. So it'll work on anything.

Because it seems like as we try to modernize our police departments and also to gather data that is relevant to your work and our work. Having that technology would make it so much easier and more efficient. So it's. I'm glad to hear that you're moving forward with it.

I was glad to hear that my own police chief wants to move forward. Seems like it makes sense. Yeah. Thank you very much. Okay. Thanks. Thanks to you. And thanks to the Members for questions. Let's move on to the next Bill. House Bill 1611, House draft one related to taxation.

This measure establishes a yearly reduction in the General excise tax rate on groceries and non-prescription drugs on a tiered schedule until January 1, 2034 when a full General excise tax exemption applies. And it has other provisions as well. First up, we have the Department of Taxation.

The Tax Department has two recommendations. First, a more specific definition for groceries and non prescription drugs. And the second one is more of a technical request in Section 4 to move this exemption from the county surcharge to D where we've listed all the exemptions from the county surcharge.

Great. Thank you very much. Next, Nate Hix, Hawaii Public Health Institute. Welcome.

Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, Nate Hix with Hawaii Public Health Institute in support. We've allowed poverty and food insecurity to run rampant in the state. One in three households have struggled to make ends meet and this can be alleviated to a small degree by getting this passed.

Removing the get from groceries, a basic necessity that everybody needs to switch survive. It's not important that we tax these struggling families on a basic necessity. We can move our tax structure to a different tax on something that's much more progressive and not burdening the low income families.

The most get burdens low income families at about 8% of their income where high income folks only experience the get at a low rate of 2%. And so this imbalance can be alleviated here providing much needed relief. So we support this Bill and Mahal for the opportunity to testify.

Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Hix. Next we have Lauren Zirbel, Hawaii Food Industry Association.

Thank you so much. Chair, Vice chair, Committee Members, Lauren Zirbel with Hawaii Food Industry Association. We represent about 200 food and beverage supply chain, retail farmer, distribution companies. We've been supporting this Bill for probably over 30 years. At this point point we're one of only four states that still taxes basic necessity groceries.

There are many studies that show it's extremely regressive and it actually causes food insecurity by almost the same rate that you are taxing people on food.

If you pull out the USDA data on at home food pre tax, you do 4% on that, it's about 180, which is a lot less than it had previously been estimated to cost. I think that's because we were using the data, the post tax data when we were calculating it previously. We're in strong support of this measure.

I'll be available for questions if you have any. We put up a survey online for this Bill and it already has over 600 signatures. So this is an incredibly popular issue and we hope that you will support it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation of Hawaii on zoom.

Thank you. Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We had mostly technical comments on the Bill. One that was Already mentioned by Department of Tax.

The other concern that we have is that when fully phased in there will be wholesale tax when the wholesaler sold it to the retailer, but no tax following, which is kind of a strange inversion that may create enforcement issues. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in support. Not present. Next. Aloha Care in support. Mike Nguyen not present. Let's see. We received a total of 35 testimonies, 31 in support, one in opposition, three with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1611? Please come on up, introduce yourself.

Oh, I see you didn't know you were going to testify. Matt Prellberg

Matt Prellberg on behalf of Holomua Collaborative, local nonprofit founded to advocate for policies to keep local working families in Hawaii by making sure we can afford to stay here. My apologies Chair, if I clicked the wrong button. I did attend to be here. So

Glad to see you.

Glad to see you as well. You have received our written testimony and I don't want to go too much more into it. I do want to highlight a couple things though and bring up one specific quote that I think stands out.

Our related organization Holomua Collective does an annual affordability surve to understand really what are the primary drivers of the cost of living and affordability in Hawaii.

This past year our survey surveyed 3,200 local workers and one of the things that we found is that 42% of the residents find it very difficult to save money from their paychecks which is up from 34% who had found that the past year. In this survey we ask what are the primary drivers of cost of living.

The top two are routinely housing and wages but afterwards continually comes up is taxes and the cost of food which this Bill addresses both of those things. If you look at our testimony, we mentioned in this survey that we do open ended questions as part of the survey too.

And I don't know about Committee Members but I know that when I am taking an open ended question on a survey I often just skip next and go to the next thing. But the respondents to our survey overwhelmingly responded.

We have over 10,000 responses in the open ended questions because people really wanted to share share the pain and the struggles that they are going through.

A couple of the specific responses are mentioned but people mentioned specifically measuring their rice and limiting it for the amount they're using in their musubi that they are spearfishing and fishing to find their food because it's too expensive to Buy fish in the grocery store.

They're taking home leftover meals from work functions that someone else has paid for because that's the only way they can afford their food. Or they're eating Simon and water because that's what they can do to fill them up at a low price.

The final quote I'd like to leave you with, that was responded in one of our surveys. When asked, what methods do you use to stretch your paycheck? They said, there is no stretching.

I do not have enough money to take care of bills and groceries, so I rely heavily on credit cards to pay for my groceries and other essential supplies, making my credit card debt very, very high.

For those reasons and what this Bill can do to help out our local working families, we stand in strong support, and I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Pearlberg. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1611? If not questions, Members, I have a question for the Tax Department. Would you have an estimate as to how much this would change our tax revenue?

Sorry, I don't.

I think that's an important consideration as we decide what to do with this measure.

Revenue impact statement will be ready by Finn hearing.

They get it, but we don't. Okay, I understand you only have so many bills that you can do finance, you know, fiscal notes on. I'm just concerned about the cost. I mean, I signed on to the Bill, and it's a great idea. I just worry about the cost.

I think it's hard to estimate because we're not sure this will cover in the definition. So that's why we are seeking a more specific definition so we can make a better estimate.

Mr. Yamachika brought up some of his concerns. One of the concerns I have, which is similar, is this, how do we prevent double taxation?

Yeah. So there is an exemption in here for the wholesale. So I was. I was curious about. I hadn't seen his testimony before, but yeah, within the Bill, it exempts it on the retail and the wholesale level.

Okay. Sounds like this needs some more work. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not.

Yes, I'm trying to ask my staff, but I have notes that annual revenue loss could be 200. 20 million to 250. No. Is that million? Yeah. Million. I don't know. I'm trying to verify where these figures came from. Oh, sorry. Just a guesstimation. Yeah.

Okay. Thanks for that information. Appreciate that. Rep. Cochran, if there's no more questions, let's go on to the next measure. Thank you. To the testifiers. House Bill 2357 relating to artificial intelligence. This measure prohibits music streaming platforms from hosting, distributing or otherwise making available in the state music performed or attributed to an artificial intelligence music artist.

It makes violations an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice. First up, we have the Attorney General Ashley Tanaka or Chris Leong in person.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Ashley Tanaka. I'm a Deputy Attorney General. We did submit written testimony in opposition to this Bill.

While we do understand and appreciate the challenges that artificial intelligence and trying to regulate it poses, the reason for our opposition is the significant adverse risk of litigation that this Bill Bill poses, mainly due to the First Amendment as this Bill restricts expressive speech.

So we do respectfully request that this Bill be held and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Rick Manayan, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. Welcome.

Please proceed. Good afternoon, Chair, Congress Vice Chair of POI Point and Members of the Committee. I'm Rick Benign. On behalf of DBEDT and DBEDT supports the intent of House Bill 2357 HD1, which prohibits music streaming platform from hosting, distributing or otherwise making available in the state music perform or attributed to an AI music artist.

We defer to the Department of the Attorney General as to the aspects of their concerns regarding their regarding First Amendment rights and also their required enforcement as identified in the measure. Thank you for the opportunity.

Sure. Thank you for being here. We've received a total of seven testimonies, four in support, three in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB2357 if not questions, Members, see Representative Shimizu

Attorney General, please. So in your testimony, you have concerns about freedom of speech, but if this entity is not a person, does that artificial intelligence still have a right to be having a freedom of speech?

We believe it does.

As we cited to a U.S. Supreme Court case from 2024 in our testimony, Moody v. NetChoice, where the U.S. Supreme Court was evaluating whether social media platforms have a right to free speech, essentially, and they did hold that social media platforms are entities that they exercise editorial discretion in the selection and presentation of content. Excuse me. And.

And thus they are engaging in first amended protected speech activity. So just because they are entities and not natural persons, the US Supreme Court did find that they did have First Amendment protected speech rights. So we do believe that that same analysis would be applicable to music streaming platforms in this case.

And we do believe that courts would likely treat music streaming platforms in a similar manner that they do have this first amended protected right to free speech, as in this case, editors of the selection and presentation of music that we streamed.

So is that what the Supreme Court stated specifically, or is that your interpretation of that movie?

Oh, that's what they held for our social media platforms.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much. Thanks to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2473, House Draft 1, relating to the recognition of a Hawaiian sense of place.

This measure establishes the Hawaiian Sense of Place Recognition act, requiring the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development to develop educational and outreach programs to promote understanding of the Hawaiian sense of place among residents, visitors and public employees. It requires state agencies to incorporate Hawaiian sense of place principles into land planning, management and state construction projects.

First up, we have Mary Alice Evans, State of Hawaii, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. You got to come up. You can't just stand there and stand on your testimony. Sorry. I want everyone on TV to see you and hear you. So introduce yourself and tell me the highlights of your comments.

Thank you. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poikoi, Members of the Committee, Scott Allen, on behalf of opsd, we stand on our comments and that we're concerned that this could be redundant with the current review process that we're undergoing for the State Planning Act. And also note that the implementation of the educational outreach activities required would necessitate additional funding.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next we have Madeline McKeague, Hawaiian Council. Welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha, Tarnas, Vice Chair Poifoy and Members of the Committee. I'm Luana Lindsay on behalf of the Hawaiian Council, and we stand on our written testimony in strong support of this Bill. Here for any questions.

Thank you very much. We have a total of six testimonies, five in support, one with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2473, if not Mr. Mazakian, I didn't see that you wanted to testify, but please go ahead.

I originally just put in written testimony. I'm here actually for a different Bill today that's coming up. But I do want to say I'm in strong support of this Bill and I do want to use this time so I don't lose my time on the next Bill to just indicate that on HB 2561, my written testimony.

Don't talk about another Bill please

Not show. Okay. It just doesn't show. I just want to give you a heads up in advance. My written testimony doesn't show up. I'm not going to discuss the Bill

when I come to that measure. Which, which measure did you say you want to testify on?

HB 2561. I've already called your office and my written testimony was put in. She could see it, but it doesn't show.

I will make sure to call on you for HB2561. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else wishing to testify on 2473? If not, questions? Members seeing no questions, we'll move on. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 1579. House Draft 1 related to light pollution. This measure, beginning July 1, 2027 establishes outdoor light fixture requirements throughout the state and provide certain exemptions for Department of Education facilities.

First up, we have Ed Sniffin, Department of Transportation in support. In zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Dre Khalili, Deputy Director of Transportation for harbors. You have our testimony. We support the intent. We understand the need to mitigate the effects of light pollution.

However, considering that the Department of Transportation manages thousands of high mass light fixtures that would be subject to these requirements, you know, there are very real costs to either retrofitting, which you'll see in our testimony, and then there are also operational costs that we will see, you know, should the Bill move forward as drafted.

And so, for example, for our ports, the, the curfew period would impact cargo operations, which then affect our supply chain, which then will affect, you know, empty store shelves.

And so we are proposing in our testimony for the Committee to consider an amendment that exempts the Department of Transportation from the requirements for the lighting fixtures in the same way that I think Department of Education requested similar for its facilities. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Deputy Director Kalili. Next. Department of Education in support. Not present. Next. Katherine Stanaway, Department of Land and Natural Resources, with comments. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, Catherine Stanaway, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife. We, we have her comments on this measure. We're in strong support of efforts to reduce light pollution. I hope you can hear me okay. I'm getting over a cold.

Sure. Thanks for keeping the cold germs to yourself.

So we recognize that light pollution impacts native wildlife, disrupts astronomy, stargazing cultural traditions and even impacts human health. So this Bill addresses the many of those concerns. We recommend technical comments on the Bill. These include removing a provision to exclude Kauai.

That's because 90% of the APO, which is the near shear water, excuse me, population lives on that island, and they're very vulnerable to collisions with structures. And then also edits to the turtle lighting. There's a. I think a typo. It says "ero" uplift instead of zero uplift. Also, another turtle lighting section in the bollards.

The glare rating should be G0 instead of B0. And there's a change. We recommend a change to the glare rating.

In another section, and that's from B1 to G1. So just some typos.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. Next. Doug Simons, University of Hawaii in support on zoom.

Hello, sir. Aloha chair, Tarnas Vice chair of ... and Members of the Committee. My name is Doug Simons. I'm the Director of the, UH Institute for Astronomy.

UH, strongly supports House Bill 1579 HD1, which establishes statewide outdoor lighting requirements to protect Hawaii's dark night skies, safeguard native wildlife, reduce energy waste, and preserve the cultural and scientific value of natural dark. Of natural darkness across the islands.

So we stand by our testimony, and I simply want to point out at the very back of our written testimony is a URL link to the full advisory Committee report that was generated late last year.

It's a remarkable compendium, over 100 pages with a variety of experts that provided input, and that's really the scientific basis for the Bill that's under consideration today. So with that, mahalo for the opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to ask questions if you have any.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Next person said they wanted to testify is Tina Yamaki, Hawaii Transportation Association. On Zoom. Not present in opposition. Next. Ilahea Johnson, Mauna Kea Observatories. On Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair Members Ilihill Johnson for the Mauna Kea Observatories in strong support this measure.

... mahalo you Chair and vice chair and all of the introducers of this measure for bringing it up, not just on behalf of the Mauna Kea Observatories and the work that we do to advance our understanding of the universe and humanity's place in it, but also all of the benefits of a dark night sky to our wildlife and our cultural practices here in Hawaii.

Want to recognize the very valid concerns that a lot of the other testifiers have brought up relating to safety and things like that. Definitely supportive of those. But overall, I want to thank you all for your support of this measure going forward. Mahalo.

Thanks. Always good to see you, Mr. Johnson. Let's see. Next person that said they wish to testify is Mary Alice Evans. Mary Alice, they need to see you on TV and hear you. Sorry. Make you walk up, but please introduce yourself.

And Mary Ellis Evans, testifying as an individual, private individual, in strong support of this measure. I believe that there are enough exemptions that can be provided to our state and county agencies that are responsible for safety of our sports events, our harbor events, anything that needs to have light that doesn't Conform with this can be exemption.

But we need to keep moving forward in replacing those older fixtures with fully shielded down light fixtures gradually as the old ones wear out or new contracts are executed to get the benefits of renewable energy through LEDs.

New LEDs can be warm white instead of that bright glary blue rich white that is bad for animals, bad for humans and bad for our tourism culture and our native Hawaiian practitioners. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's see. We've received a total of 16 testimonies. 11 in support, 2 in opposition, 3 with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1579? If not. Questions, Members, I have a question for DLNR. Ms. Stanaway, are you involved with the Dark Skies Committee that's been worked on this report?

We were involved with drafting the Bill, yes.

Okay. And so your amendments are really to correct typos and such. Okay. Would the Committee be able to work with the Department of Transportation Harbors Division to address their concerns?

Because everyone wants to make this work, but they also want to make sure that they could continue operations at the port, which happen at night. So are there technologies and protocols that the group could recommend to Department of Transportation Harbors Division so that they could have their needs met?

I believe so. I'm not on the Committee myself, so. But I believe that the Department of Transportation could work with the Dark Space Committee. Yes,

that the Department of Transportation is also on that Committee.

I think that they could work with them. They could work with them. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if they're a Member.

Okay. Yeah, I don't. I don't know either. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Other questions, Members, if not, thank you very much to the testifiers.

Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2476, proposing amendments to Article 7, Sections 12 and 13 of the Hawaii State Constitution.

This measure proposes constitutional amendments to expressly provide that the Legislature may authorize political subdivisions, such as counties, to issue housing infrastructure growth bonds and exclude these bonds from determinations of the funded debt of the political subdivisions for specified public works, public improvements or other actions necessary for housing and community development.

First up, we have testimony from the Hawaii Public Housing Authority in support, not present. Next, we have testimony from Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation in support, not present. Next, we have testimony from Hawaii Community Development Authority in support, not present. Next, we have testimony and support from Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Thank you for coming up to the podium. Introduce yourself and proceed.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice chair. Members of the Committee, Seijo Gawa, From Office of Planning, Sustainable Development Office of Planning is in full support of this Bill. This one mechanism to unlock infrastructure financing in areas that we need it, such as Transit Oriented Development areas. And it'll help promote growth for. In Transit Oriented Development areas.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Sure. Thank you very much. Next. Ian Robertson, Deputy Attorney General of the Attorney General's Office.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ian Robertson, Deputy Attorney General. We submitted testimony expressing concerns over use of the phrase community development and have suggested including a definition in this in the Bill for community development. Thank you.

Do you have a definition that you can offer to us?

We don't have one prepared at this time.

Your suggestion is that we include one. And you're so smart, I was hoping you'd give us one.

Thank you for saying that. I. Obviously I'm not that smart. I'll take it back to the office and see what. What we can provide to your office. Yes, this.

Because it has to meet first lateral. You know, we. We don't have much time. I do want to include a definition of community development that meets your needs. Okay. Could you get us something asap?

Yes. I'll go back to the office and talk to people right after

And think about it and talk to other smart people in the AG's office so that you can get us something. Because I think if the Committee agrees with me and we want to move it forward, I do want to make sure we address your concern.

But I think you would be best equipped to tell us what would be the best definition. Sure. Okay. Thank you very much. Next. Lyndsey Garcia, Hawaii Realtors. Welcome, Ms. Garcia.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Lyndsey Garcia from Hawaii association of Realtors. We stand in strong support of this measure. Just wanted to echo the testimony of OPSD and so many others that are here.

One thing that I did want to highlight from my Testimony is that 48 out of 50 states already have access to this type of funding. And so we just ask that our counties also be allowed to access the option for this type of funding as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Richmond Lazar Housing Hawaii's future in support. Not present. Next. Evan Oue. Welcome, sir. NAIOP Hawaii, which doesn't mean anything, right? It's just the name, unfortunately, sir.

And you know, we'll be working on getting that acronym fixed to make more sense, but. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Evan Oue. On behalf of NAIOP. We have a written testimony and in strong support of this measure.

We did just want to highlight that, you know, this is one of the strongest financing mechanisms to get infrastructure done and you know, in which, you know, housing and mixed use development communities can really arise from to keep our residents home. And at end of the day, that's the goal. So we stand in strong support.

I'll be available for any questions, thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next, Tom Yamachika, Tax foundation of Hawaii on zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. This we think is tax increment financing just under another name.

And our bottom line is we question the wisdom of writing an exception into our constitutional debt limit safeguards or debt that is supposed to be paid back by increased property tax revenues from development that has yet to occur. If the development doesn't deliver as advertised, then all of us are stuck. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you very much, Mr. Yamachika. Next, Andrew Pereira, Pacific Resource Partnership.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poipoi Members of the Committee. I'm not too smart either, but I'll give it a go. Join the club. For far too long, Hawaii has been missing an important tool in helping solve our housing crisis. And that tool is value capture financing.

I would argue that there's no better place for this type of creative financing than Hawaii because Hawaii holds its property values perhaps better than any other location in the country. So that criticism of whether a project comes to fruition, I think Hawaii is actually the poster child for this type of value capture financing.

And talking closely with our home builders, our local home builders here, we found that having home builders pay for infrastructure, that's roads, water, electricity, that adds about 30% to the cost of a home and that's passed on directly to the home buyer. So for a $600,000 so called starter home or condominium, you're talking about $180,000.

That's the price of the infrastructure that it took to build that home and that's passed on directly to the home buyer.

So this type of value capture financing can really help solve our housing crisis by taking away those costs from the home and really bringing down the price of housing and helping us build the 64,000 units that we need statewide, 27,000 units just here on Oahu.

Thank you for allowing me to add to my written testimony on behalf of PRP and we stand in strong support, Mahalo.

Thank you, Mr. Perera. Next, Mark Anthony Clement, Hawaii Regional Council Carpenters, welcome. Please proceed.

Hello, Chair, vice Chair, Members, Mark Anthony Clemente, Political Director for Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters. We're in strong support of this measure. And you have our written testimony.

Just want to highlight that this measure helps align infrastructure financing with housing production, supports job creation for local workers, and advances long term housing affordability without really shifting these costs onto working families such as the previous testifier had mentioned.

I also want to echo the previous testifiers in support and the comments they made in reference to this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We received a total of 17 testimonies, 13 in support, one in opposition, three with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2476 HD1? If not, questions Members represent Shimizu.

Is there anyone from HPHA Hawaii Public House? Nope. Okay, Naya, since I remembered your. Mr. Oue, thank you. Thank you for being here. I'm not sure if you're the right person to answer this, but I need somebody to answer this question.

I understand that this is affecting the counties and I was disappointed that there was no testimony from the counties that expressed their position of how it affects them. So that's. Do you know if the counties are in line with this or not?

I can't speak for the county's, you know, representative, but I do know that this will help, you know, take on that infrastructure cost and allow it to be paid off over time. So at the end of the day, the county accomplishes its goals of getting the housing units that it needs. But I can't speak for them directly.

I got the question out there, so thank you.

Thank you. Other questions, Members?

Sure. Maybe Tom Yamachika from tax office. What? Hawaii Tax Foundation. Of Hawaii Tax Foundation. Is he online? oh, yes. Aloha, Mr. Yamachika. So your comment that we would all pay. Could you elaborate a little bit more on your concern here? You mentioned. What was that?

Sure. I mean, one of the features of this particular Bill is that the kinds of debt that is supported by this Bill, these infrastructure bonds would not count against the state's debt limit. Now, you know what happens if, you know, you borrow too much and there's, and there's not a whole lot of stuff behind it. Right.

I mean, there's financial disaster that happens or at least the potential of one. And again, our concern is that you're basically using these bonds that are, that are premised on increased property tax revenue from the development.

And if that, and if that increased value doesn't happen, then you have a problem.

Okay.

Right. Okay. All right. Yeah. I mean, I'm just thinking of bond readings for the county. This is talking about affecting counties and their real property tax, which is their constitutional right to be able to do one of their main revenue generators.

So you know, I feel like I do wish we had county, but this is actually an amendment to the con to the constitution. You know, it's to I think put a ballot initiative out. Right. So that's where I think the discussion, more discussion will come. But I appreciate your time and sharing. Thank you. Your comments.

Thank you Representative.

Thank you very much. Any other questions Members? If not, we'll move on. Thanks to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 2185. House Draft 1 related to sports officials.

This measure authorizes the Department of Education to retain private counsel to represent a sports official in certain civil proceedings to obtain a temporary restraining order in response to incidences where the sports official has been assaulted or threatened in the course of legally discharging their sports official duties.

It includes substantial bodily injury of a sports official engaged in the lawful discharge of the sports officials duties in the offense of assault in the first degree. Clarifies that a sports official includes a school administrator, league administrator or athletics Director. Clarifies that a sports official's duties cover sports events at public schools and private schools.

First up we have Department of Education with comments not present. Next we have Office of the Public Defender. Ms. Cheng, thank you for being here.

Good afternoon again. And I first want to thank the Committee for allowing our office to submit late testimony on this matter. And we have submitted testimony in opposition. And I would like to first frame the nature of our testimony.

We do not have any comment on the provision of the Bill that allows the Attorney Generals to appoint counsel for certain individuals. Our testimony is going to be focused on the increase in criminal penalties.

And I think it's first important to note that of course our office does not advocate, support or condone any violence of any kind, whether it's against a sports official, educational worker or anyone of the General public. Where our opposition lies is seeking an increase in the classification of offence and the additional penalties for this type of conduct.

I would first like to note for the committee's benefit that assault offenses are usually graded based on the level of injury. So if you have a bodily injury without more that's usually a misdemeanor assault.

If you have, substantial bodily injury and these are all defined by statute, then we reach an assault two classification and then we go up from there. What we have noted in our testimony is that sports officials are already what's considered a protected class.

So there are already penalty enhancements and statutory enhancements to address the special category of individual.

So for example if you were to commit bodily injury against a sporting official, currently without any changes to the law, it is already a class C felony, where for the rest of the public, except for other designated special classes, it would just be a misdemeanor offense.

Additionally, the only what so what this provision is seeking to do is to then enhance it even further. So if you have substantial bodily injury against a sporting official, we are seeking to raise that to a class B felony. The only other special category of individuals that that is recognized likewise is for our elderly, our kupuna, essentially.

So what this Bill is doing is making a statement against sports officials or about sports officials that they are should be treated differently than our other protected classes. And these include lifeguards, emergency medical first responders, even teachers, as well as our child welfare service workers and even our law enforcement officers.

So that is really where the crux of our opposition is. Again, not to reflect that we don't believe they deserve protection under the law, but we believe the existing statutes as well as the protected classification that they already receive adequately addresses this.

And I would also like to note for the Committee, by the time this offense would get utilized, that means something has happened. And I believe I tried to share this with another Committee. By the time it gets to the criminal system, something has already happened.

What I believe everybody is interested in is making sure that these things do not happen. Whether that's prevention de escalation, enhanced security at sporting events, or whether it's to limit who can attend or prevent people from attending if they've caused trouble before.

So thank you so much for the opportunity to comment and I will be available to answer any questions.

Thank you. I'm sure we'll have questions. Thanks very much for being here. Ms. Cheng. Next person said they wish to testify as Douglas Boyer in support on zoom not present. We've received a total of 13 testimonies. Nine in support, two in opposition, two with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2185?

If not questions Members? Yes. Representative Garcia,

thank you. Chair from Ms. Chang, please. Thank you for being here. You mentioned that sports officials are already protected similar to Lake Kupuna are in current law. And so if you attack physically or so a sports official, that would be a class C felony, correct?

Yes.

How about verbal assaults?

That it would be a terroristic threatening. That is where there's a physical attack or physical interaction, it would be a terroristic threatening offense that would be different from an assault offense.

So this Bill would class would change that from a class C to a Class B, how does those penalties differ? I mean, as far as sentencing or.

Yes, and thank you for that question. So there's several. I mean, the biggest change would be the possible penalties. In terms of incarceration. The maximum possible penalty for a class B felony is what we call our indeterminate 10 year term of incarceration. And for a class C felony, it's five years.

Why we call it indeterminate term is our sentencing scheme in Hawaii is defined by these open terms. So for a class C felony, if you get prison, you get five years.

It's defined as an open term because the Hawaii Paroling Authority will decide how much of that five years you must do before you can become eligible for parole. For a class B, it extends to 10 years. Now, again, the paroling authority would decide how much of that you would serve before becoming eligible for for parole.

But even if you are granted parole at either one year, two years or three years into your sentence, the remainder of whatever is left on the open term is generally how long you're going to be supervised on parole. Also, although these probations are.

Excuse me, these offenses are probationable for a class C felony, the courts can impose up to a year jail as a condition of probation. And when we say jail and prison jail, we're talking about our community correctional facilities. In prison, we're talking about Halawa Correctional or Subaru or Waiava or Kulani.

And for a class B felony, the court can impose up to 18 months in jail as a condition of probation. Thank you. And then there's a fine difference amount as well. But the main issue is the incarceration penalty. Thanks.

Thank you. Yep. Representative Cochran

for Attorney generals. I know Mr. Hayashi is not here from DOE

Ms. Cheng is with the Public Defenders.

No, I know, but I'm just leading up to the question to her.

For her, he's not here, but in his testimony, he did cite your office because I think they're. They're wondering that you folks have better oversight and expertise at council type, you know, oversight versus the DOE.

Okay.

So currently, if there are anything having to do with legal matters, do you already, you know, service the Department of Education AG's office?

So I'm not with the Attorney General. oh, I apologize. I'm with the Office of the Public Defender.

Oh, public Defender. Yeah. Sorry.

Yeah. No, no, no, no problem.

Okay. Sorry. You're gonna tell me that, right? And I cut you off.

I did tell you that. Okay, sorry. She's with the Office of Public Defendants.

Okay, sorry.

Okay. Any other questions?

Is AG here?

No. Oh, so a question. That's it? Yes. Okay. Question for you, Ms. Cheng. Everyone was outraged with the incident that happened last December, December 4, 2025 when I think it was an athletic Director was walking from the field to the parking lot and she was attacked by a very unhappy parent.

My understanding is that the individual who allegedly attacked the athletic Director has been charged with assault in the second degree, which is a class C felony punishable up to five years of incarceration.

Correct.

That's under the current law.

So why do we need extra. Why do we need the Bill if something that, as heinous as that incident was, is already being prosecuted under current law?

Correct.

Well, and thank you for that question, represent Chair Tarnas. I think there's two things from our perspective, we absolutely understand and empathize. And I. I know this Committee is very used to our office appearing in this capacity where we're trying to just kind of take down the temperature a little bit.

I believe this is very knee jerk to what happened. And what happened absolutely is the allegations. And from what I think the public has seen, and I can speak to it just because our office is not currently representing the individual charged with this offense. But it is heinous what happened, and that should not happen.

I do want to, to your point, say that had there not been an already established special class for supporting officials, in all likelihood, again I caveat this. We are not the prosecuting or charging agency based on the level of injury. The individual would have been only charged with a misdemeanor offense.

It is because of the existing enhancement that is already given to sporting officials that this person was charged with a felony. So that already exists.

And that's what we're trying to educate the Committee about and hopefully the public about that we do have things already in place to specially protect sporting officials, because we have already in the Legislature has already recognized that they should be treated as such.

What this is seeking to do is take it a step further, which I understand feel is. Is reactive to the situation. But again, that's why our office would like to again encourage to seek solutions that are not tied or tethered to increase penalties within the system.

Because I don't think the goal is to stop sporting events from happening. But like I said, by the time it gets to our office or any defense attorney, something allegedly has already happened, somebody has already been hurt or threatened, and by that time it's reached a different side of the system.

And my understanding too is that this individual is banned from coming to Sporting events.

Correct. And in a previous version of this measure, I believe we said that we take no position on that and we would support that as a way to avoid these situations.

The law, the statute that currently exists, which we did a couple years ago, that creates this special assault against a sports official, it says specifically in here that if a person is convicted of the offense of and it goes through assault in the first degree, second degree, third degree, terroristic threatening in the first degree, terroristic threatening in the second degree, and the victim of the offense is a sports official engaged in the lawful discharge of the sports official's duties, the court may order in the court's discretion that the defendant, in addition to any other punishment, be enjoined from attending any sports event of the type at which the sports official was engaged in the lawful discharge of the sports officials duties for up to 12 months from the date of sentencing for a first offense or for life for a second or subsequent offense.

That's in the law right now.

It is. And that's in addition to other court mechanisms that would prohibit anyone from contact or being at certain locations. For example, there is the whole TRO process which I think is included in this measure, which is, you know, with the AGs, but there's a TRO civil process.

There's also a no contact order process which the court can order pretrial. So you don't have to wait for adjudication of the criminal matter. The court has a discretion and the prosecuting agency has the authority to request that there be a stay away order from any location.

And specifically, I believe a court would find a nexus to this and would order that there would be a stay away from pre trial. And then as the law already states, there can be up to a lifetime ban for a subsequent offense.

And then just to be clear with the public and supporters and Members, sports official in the current law means a person at a sports event who enforces the rules of the event, such as an umpire, referee, timer or scorer, or a person who supervises the participants, such as a coach, regardless of whether the person is paid or provides their services as an unpaid volunteer.

Thank you.

So that's currently in the law. So it's very broad protection.

Right. And that could extend to a parent volunteer who is helping manage the team. Yes, it has a broad definition and I think

we sometimes forget what we've done in the Legislature. And you know, we did move this Bill out a couple of years ago which provides significant protection and we see that it works.

This individual who is charged with assault in the second degree following the incident that we all saw on video in the news, is being charged with assault in the second degree, with which is a Class C felony punishable up to five years of incarceration.

So I just want to make sure everyone knows that we've done something on this significant.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you very much. Questions? Yeah. Representative Shimizu. And then Representative. Thank you.

Yes.

Chair for Ms. Chang. So we agree we don't want to overreact to a situation. So I don't want to misrepresent you, but you believe that the current law is sufficient as far as addressing that situation?

Yes, absolutely.

And I heard you mention not being punitive.

Punitive. Do you have other thoughts or suggestions on what what could be added or is it like you said, sufficient as it is as far as deterrence for for those kinds of actions?

So I, I think the Office of the Public Defender has its own opinion on whether increased penalties and continuing to enhance and put more prison time, more jail time actually has a deterrent effect.

However, we do understand that rationale and that thinking part of what we included in our testimony is these are not rational choices that are happening when these types of interactions are taking place. And I think to much surprise from not only Committee Members and the community. Most people don't know that sporting officials already received additional enhanced protections.

So for example, if someone was to go into a grocery store and assault a grocery store Clerk in the course of their duties assisting the public, they would not be entitled to a protection such as this.

So I think it comes from our perspective educating the public if we are hoping to be deterrent is we have to let people know that these laws are on the books and that there is already an increased penalty if you are to behave or engage in conduct such as this. So that's first and foremost.

And then secondly, I think as I've stated earlier, our office's stance is yes, and in terms of the criminal penal code, I believe what's on the books is enough. Can there be done more societally and within the community and within the education system, perhaps.

But in terms of the penal code which this Bill, the portion of the Bill addresses, we do believe that what is already there is adequate as they are already specially protected.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Chair.

First to Rep. Garcia and then to Rep. Cochrane Thank you.

I just wanted to put to, to to put on record that the fact that the DOE is not here is unfortunate. This Bill directly affects them and, and many of them were asking for something like this.

So I just think that moving forward they should not be pre that they should be present at more than more committees other than just education. So anyway, thanks.

I agree Rep. Cochran

and I do have a question for the public Defender's office.

You got the right person here now?

Yes. Yes. So I'm hearing that you feel confident with the law in place already addresses these situations. There's a testimony from a principal of Lanai High School and he's mentioning this that Hawaii sports sports is broadly defined.

I guess so my question is would it, would it your law that you're talking about affect like setting sports that don't occur in a school setting? I think is his comment also like you know, adult sports at the rec center or something. Or is it. I mean, if, you know. I don't mean to. I don't even.

It is Specific to schools.

Okay. So it is broad, the coverage.

It. Yes.

Yeah. For the assaults against sports official. The definition. For the purposes of this section, the definition of sports event means any organized amateur or professional athletic contest in the state.

Okay. So not just at schools. Yes. Okay. All right. Well, thank you.

Okay, thanks. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Cheng. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Thanks to all the testifiers on this measure. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2147 proposing amendments to Articles 8 and 10 of the Constitution of the state of Hawaii to authorize the Legislature to establish a surcharge on residential investment property to increase funding for public education.

First up, we have Department of Education with comments. Not present. Next. County of Maui in opposition on zoom. Harry Stockwell.

Hi. Aloha. My name is Carrie Stockwell. I'm with the county of Maui. I'm the property tax administrator. And we stand by our written opposition testimony and will remain on the call for questions if needed. Mahalo for your consideration.

Sure. Ms. Stockwell, could you please summarize for us why you oppose it? What's your main reason for opposing it? Main reasons.

The main reasons is basically house, you know, erode county home rule and create a precedent for further state encroachment into local fiscal governance and inequity among counties due to different real estate markets.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Yes, I want. I want the public and all the Members to least hear the highlights because unfortunately not everyone reads everyone else's testimony. And so I appreciate your explanation. Thank you. Next we have Osatui, Hawaii State Teachers association in support. Not present. Next we have Hawaii Teacher Standards Board Mitsuhiga in support.

Not present. Next we have Hawaii Realtors Lyndsey Garcia in opposition. Ms. Garcia, welcome. Please proceed.

Hello, chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Lindsey Garcia from the Hawaii association of Realtors. So just standing on our testimonial position, just wanted to call forth a section of our testimony that we wanted to highlight. And that is we believe there's a misconception that taxation solely affects.

That this type of taxation would only affect the wealthy or luxury properties. The surcharge will also directly impact workforce housing and including multif family units and walkups in our state which could be valued over $3 million. The repercussions of any of surcharge on property tax could be passed on to renters, thus affecting our Workforce, housing. Thank you.

Good point. Thank you. Next. Malia Tsuchiya, Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks in support. Welcome.

Aloha Chair Tarnas Vice Chair Point. Respected commuting Members. Thank you very much for hearing this Bill. HB 2147, House Draft 1. My name is Malia Tsuchiya. I'm here on behalf of Hawai' I Children's Action Network speaks. We primarily advocate around children's education, safety and health.

The reason why I would like to provide testimony and strong support of this Bill is we work a lot with families, we work a lot in the education committees and we're constantly hearing, you know, the facilities at my child's school are, you know, the teachers aren't getting paid enough.

We're constantly pushing bills that are trying to get our education facilities, teachers DOE more funding. Right now, as cited in, in the Bill as well as in our testimony, is a report that came out from, UH, where we're investing about 15.1% as compared to 221.5% that is invested nationally.

In addition, the tax that we're talking about is, would not be applicable to primary residents, a person's primary residence, regardless how much it is valued at. Additionally, it would apply to affordable housing. So I think those are important points for the public to know. And then in addition to that, it is really the state's responsibility for education.

It's the state that has to answer, you know, to the duties of providing public education. But because we are on a budget cycle and we know that funding is finite, like, we really have to make an effort to create some kind of stream of dedicated funding. And this is what this amendment will do.

It will allow us to provide that dedicated funding so that we can intentionally invest into education and think about the long term sustainability that will free us from the volatility and changes of the budget cycle. So, on behalf of Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks again. I humbly request that you pass HB 2147, House Draft 1.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next Tom Yamachika, Tax foundation of Hawaii on zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax foundation of Hawaii. Our first concern is technical. This Bill looks a whole lot like the one that was advanced in 2018. It got on the ballot, but it was shot down by the Supreme Court because the ballot question was deceptive.

Specifically, and this is the feature that we're most concerned about, is that voters were not apprised that they were voting on a new Tax. And this ballot question doesn't say this is pretty much similarly worded. So it doesn't tell voters that they're voting on a new tax.

At a minimum, we think that the opinion of the Supreme Court should be followed and we've cited that opinion in our testimony. So the same problems don't happen again. The other concern that we have is that there is some issue with DOE being able to spend its existing resources.

We just had some incidents a couple of years ago with DOE coming to this body and saying, well, hey, we, we can't get all of our projects built, so we propose to lapse like $900 million worth of projects. And that was written about extensively in 2023.

Until DOE can actually utilize the money, there's little justification to throw more their way. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, John Fitzpatrick and support on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hello, can you guys hear me? Yes. Aloha. Thank you guys for hearing Bill. We fought really hard to try to get something similar to this on the ballot in 2018 because our schools are really underfunded. I did hear the last person say that we don't know or the DOE can't spend the money.

But I can guarantee you if there's more funds, we can hire librarians, we could hire more math teachers, we can hire more science teachers. At my school, we could even maybe get copy paper. I'm not sure, but I can guarantee you we can spend the funds.

Furthermore, as a teacher at Kulanihakui, we have a huge teaching teacher shortage. So 50% of our core subjects at my school are held by cultural exchange teachers or emergency hires. And this isn't accept acceptable and our students deserve better.

So we do need to increase funds and we are the only state in the nation that does not ask our counties to contribute to public education. So this is one pathway forward. I've also started looking into doing a charter amendment on Maui so we could supplement it, but that also looks legally difficult.

So I'm not sure what the path forward is. But I know in order to end this teacher shortage, the next contract is going to have to be way more significant than the current contract to attract people to the profession.

So please consider passing this and I look forward to supporting it if it gets to the ballot in November.

Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick. We've received a total of 24 testimonies. 11 in support, 10 in opposition, three with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2147? House Draft 1 by Zoom? I didn't know you were going to testify on this measure. Go ahead.

I wasn't planning to, but after listening to the things that I needed to hear today, especially from the testifier from the Tax Foundation, I have more information and it's basically where I was headed, but I didn't have time.

I do not support this, this Bill and I echo, I actually had written it down that the DOE has wasted, you know, they let, they let money sit and sit and wasted money that was there earmarked for many, many projects over the years.

In addition, recently, I'm not going to go into any specifics, but there was a very large project. It had to do with air conditioning. There's a lot of investigation, I think that was being looked at that was a news story about it where they couldn't account for how they spent all of this money.

So I do not support this measure. I do support DOE and actually having better fiscal responsibility for what they do. So maybe if there's something that can come out of this, I doubt it because this is the measure for an amendment.

But down the road, maybe next session, really putting DOE and making them accountable for what they do and how they spend their money, that would be better suited. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not questions Members represent Shimizu

Tax foundation of Hawaii. Thank. Thank you for being here. Question is, do you know what the surcharge and the amount that might be generated?

I do not have that information, sir.

Okay. Thank you. Sure.

Any other questions Members

from miss Stockwell of Maui County? Is she still on? Yes, I'm here. Hi. Aloha. Ms. Stockwell. Rep. Cochran. Hi. So this is a ballot initiative. So are you folks.

I mean, should it go through, do some efforts in educating, you know, your stance or what the implications would be for the county and real property, things of that nature. Are you thinking along those lines yet to prepare yourselves in our county?

No, we haven't gotten that far yet.

Okay. All right. Do you have any idea in a dollar amount that this could bring in?

No, I do not.

Okay. Thanks for your time, though.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers and we'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 1931, House draft one relating to agriculture. This measure establishes a state noxious weed coordinator and updates the process for designating and managing noxious weeds.

It allows public proposals to add, amend or remove noxious weed designations. It requires notice and public reporting, clarifies the authority of the Department of Board, Department and Board of Agriculture and Biosecurity. Authorizes updates to the noxious weed list to be adopted by order and classifies noxious weeds into three categories.

Strengthens enforcement and penalties and updates departmental duties for noxious weed control and eradication. First up, we have the Attorney General with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Waihee-Polk, on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. Our Department has submitted testimony identifying technical drafting, a technical drafting issue with the HD1 amendment.

Specifically, there was a deletion of a section, but the references to that section were retained in the HD1. And we have provided recommended revisions to correct this issue. And I'm available for any questions from the Committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Han Lo, branch manager. We stand our written testimony. We support with the intent of the bill and we offer comments in our testimony. I'm available for questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next. Robert Hauff, Department of Land and Natural Resources. Welcome, sir.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Rob Hauff with Division of Forestry and Wildlife. Department supports this measure. As we all know, invasive plants threaten the function of our watersheds, our native biodiversity, and also contribute to Hawaii's wildfire problem.

We've needed stronger regulations for invasive plants for some time now, and this bill would regulate their movement, the sale, and also, perhaps most importantly, provide the ability to update the regulatory list more quickly. Yeah. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Hauff. Next we have Christy Martin, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. Welcome, Ms. Martin.

Mahalo, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Christy Martin, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. CGAPS has long worked on this issue. When I looked back, I realized that when I first started, one of the issues they had me working on was the noxious weed list. It was Last updated in 1992.

Now, I haven't been working for CGAPS for that long, but for my entire CGAPS career, which is now about more than 20 years, we've been trying to crack this nut and try and figure out how to update this list.

One of the things that arose, out of not being able to update this list and not being able to work more effectively on invasive plants, was the formation of the invasive species committees. That formed to try to address new plants that came in that weren't regulated but started to spread or that showed evidence of being extremely harmful elsewhere.

So here we are talking about it now and you can't imagine how thrilled I am. One of the things I wanted to mention, though not included in my testimony, but addressing something that the Department of Agriculture said and that is the lack of a definition of limited distribution.

This language, you're right, it doesn't include a definition, but we do. This work is based on other laws in other states. We try to look outside to see what everybody else to is doing. Washington also uses the term limited distribution. They do not define it.

However, they do include limited distribution or are unrecorded in a region of a state and that poses a serious threat to that region. We can also offer another alternative definition.

We could consider a plant that is not yet established across the full potential of its range in this state and that would be for, for noxious weed, B list. So I'm sorry, that's a little technical for some folks that are really in the weeds on this. Sorry. Right.

Good point.

But I'm here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ms. Martin. Okay. Next, let's see. We had a total of 12 testimonies, 11 in support, one with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1931? If not questions, Members? Representative Shimizu?

Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, please. I'm sure this is a very important problem. My question is, do you think that adding a new position as this bill proposes is the best way to combat this problem? I mean, does it add that much value to addressing this problem?

It is a good start, but to be really effective, we need to have team of personnel to resolve this issue. I mean granted, as pointed out by CGAP, the lease hasn't been updated since 1992.

And the truth is to regulate and maintain the lease requires tremendous effort and dedication and a lot of research needs to be done too. So it's not just a matter of just ah, we do literature research and there you go. This is going to be, this is going to make it to the list.

But we also got to do validation on the ground too. So it requires tremendous amount of effort putting and that's why I welcome the intent. But at the same time I also wish that we can have a lot more dialogue going in coming to a more specific methodology and in identifying weeds, the noxious weeds.

So would that be the "boots on the ground" instead of part of the team? Would that be your staff to eradicate?

I guess at this point in time is to identify the weeds. So we. So first thing, the "boots on the ground" we have to do surveys and then also research in the lab to identify the potential of the particular plant of spreading seeds and so forth. So it requires a lot more effort than just one individual. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions? Any further questions?

Yeah. Mr. Hauff, DLNR. Thank you for being here. Your testimony has a concern that if this passes, it doesn't affect your current budget, your supplemental budget and priorities. So what? Can you elaborate a little more?

Yeah, I mean, that's spoiler language that we put on supporting any bill that has a appropriation tied to it.

So this is kind of a boiler plate thing.

So this is. This is considered an additional appropriation bill. And the agencies, as they do all the time, they'll say, we support this, but please don't let it affect our current appropriations. Take it out of our budget.

Okay. And then since you're here, though, noxious weeds, is it. Would this address things that are sold, like nurseries at the airport?

Absolutely. That's part of the regulations. If it's a noxious weed, you can't sell it.

But they are. So hopefully this.

Yeah, right now. Yeah. I mean, the list is quite short currently. So it would add. It would add new species that weren't in the nursery industry and recognized as being invasive. Back in '92.

Back in '92. Right. Okay. So. Okay, thanks.

Okay, thank you. Thanks very much. Vice Chair?

For Department of Ag. You know, ideally we wouldn't have to have this bill because the Department of Ag would have already had a process in place to do kind of what the bill is asking.

Is there a reason why the Department hasn't updated the list or made an attempt to create a process to update the list since '92.

We do have a process that. Written in the rules, HAR 68. But I don't know. Okay. I mean, I came on board last. Last year; May. So I'm equally. I'm trying to find out too, why it took us so long. Even until at this point in time, it still hasn't been updated yet.

But we do have the rules written in place to do that. But looking back, looking at the rules, I do see that the rules also needs to be updated. So I think this is a great opportunity now that we all come together and work through this.

So for like a weed like say Miconia or Australian tree fern that aren't on the list, how much testing or evidence would it really take to validate that those types of weeds should be on the list?

Oh, I mean, so I look at the list of invasive species that was listed on his website. I mean, I'm in agreement with them, but I'm thinking more about setting up a procedure for new weeds, new potential weeds.

Or non existent, to the best of our knowledge, weeds.

So more in the long term. Long run. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. I look forward to continuing our discussion.

Cool.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure. Thank you to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 2017 relating to agriculture. For taxable years beginning after January 1, 2027, this measure establishes a nonrefundable income tax credit for certain agricultural investment costs incurred for agricultural activities conducted on Hawaiian homelands.

First up, we have Department of Taxation.

Aloha. The Department of Taxation has five recommendations to administer this income tax credit. First, we recommend that they add a filing deadline which is 12 months after the taxable year. Second, we recommend clarifying that the tax will be calculated at entity level. Third, recommending that the these same expenditures can't be used for other credits or deductions.

Fourth, we request that this non refundable tax credit have a carry forward of only five years. Fifth, we request clarifying whether the taxpayer may claim these same expenditures for expenditures qualifying under Section 179 and whether they can—the credit may be claimed for expenditures financed for grants or subsidies. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Oriana Leo of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. The Department stands on its testimony in strong support of this this measure. As we all should be aware, the Department administers pastoral, residential, and yes, agricultural lots. Agricultural lands make up about 30% of our total land inventory.

Pastoral lands make up about 20%. This Bill would allow for beneficiaries to be eligible for ag tax credits. Our single amendment reference center testimony just allows for broad language and flexibility so that agricultural activities are eligible, which should also include aquaculture, which is noted in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Great. Thank you very much. Mahalo. Next testimony is from Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau, in support. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2017? If not, questions. Members? Representative Garcia.

DHHL, please. Thanks for being here. Question, does the Department consider solar farms agriculture?

That's a good question because there's a difference between agricultural lands and lots versus agricultural activities. That activity, I will, I can confirm is not noted in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. However, I think it could be included and also approved by the Commission as an eligible agricultural activity eligible for these tax credits.

Okay. Yeah. Because I know there's been lots of concern from beneficiaries about DHHL, and I don't know if that's the official position of DHHL to consider solar farms as, as agriculture. But the Commission Act does lay out agriculture, agricultural lands, pastoral land lands.

But it is a concern if we're going to be giving tax credits out for more, for more solar farms, on land that could be used to actually produce food. So, that's a concern. Please check on that and get back to us if you can. Thank you.

I'd be happy to. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other questions, Members? If not, thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2561 relating to feral animals. This designates feral chickens on public lands in a city with a population of 300,000 or more as a controllable pest for purposes of public health and nuisance prevention.

It prohibits the intentional keeping, maintaining, or supporting of feral chickens on state or certain city lands, including by feeding or placing chickens in such areas. And it prohibits the abandonment of chickens on public lands or on private property without consent. It establishes fines and authorized enforcing agencies and appropriates funds.

First up, we have testimony from the Department of Health. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poe Poe, Members of the Committee. My name is Greg Takeshima. I'm the Environmental Health Program Manager for the Vector Control Branch, here representing the Department of Health. The Department of Health stands on its written testimony in support.

The Department would like to highlight that reduction of feral chickens will reduce the risk of transmission for avian diseases, such as avian malaria as well as avian influenza. The Department of Health receives numerous complaints regarding feral chickens and other feral animals.

And while DoH responds and investigates many of the complaints, counties and other state agencies are generally responsible for feral animal control and we refer to them as such. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Brian Burns, Troopers Chicken Rescue, on zoom. Welcome. Please proceed.

Morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Brian Burns. I'm the President, Founder of Troopers Chicken Rescue, a veteran led 501c3 nonprofit located here in Hawaii. I'm here today in opposition of House Bill 2561, House Draft 1. Let me be very clear at the outset, we agree there is a problem, but this Bill does not solve it.

It repeats the same short term enforcement strategies that failed in animal management across the country for decades. Section 1 and section sign 3 designate feral chickens as controllable pests and public nuisance. That framing may sound decisive, but labeling animals as pests does not reduce population.

It simply justifies removal pressure without building the compassionate infrastructure needed to actually solve the issue. You cannot enforce your way out of a biological and behavioral problem.

Section sign 4 bans feeding and attractants on public land. Feeding bans are one of the most studied and consistently ineffective tools in animal management. They do not reduce populations. They scatter animals into neighborhoods, parks, and private property, increasing conflict and making the problem less visible but more widespread. This is not population control, it's displacement.

We must also confront the reality and cruelty of cockfighting. Any serious discussion about feral chickens in Hawaii must acknowledge the elephant in the room, organized cockfighting and widespread cruelty. Across the islands, chickens are bred, bought, abandoned, and left to die when they are no longer profitable.

Injured birds are dumped; roosters are released when they cannot be housed legally. This is not speculation; it is what rescuers see every single day, yet this Bill does not address the systemic drivers of population growth tied to exploitation, illegal activity. Instead, it focuses on feeding and nuisance behavior, which are not the primary sources of population expansion.

If we are serious about reducing feral populations, policy must target dumping, breeding pipelines, smuggling, and enforcement against organized cruelty, not community members who are trying to mitigate suffering. Ignoring this reality while labeling chickens as pests risk treating the symptom while leaving the cause on top. The Rescue Exemption concerns. So, the rescue exemption in sign Section 4d is deeply flawed.

Requiring prior government approval before rescue actions can occur is not workable in the real world. Animals do not get injured on a schedule. Emergencies do not wait for paperwork. This provision would slow compassionate intervention and discourage the very community response that currently fills the gap left by limited government capacity.

The administrative costs and manpower requirements is an unnecessary roadblock to success. Section sign 6 establishes escalating fines, but penalties without infrastructure are simply punishment without a pathway to compliance. There's no investment in prevention, no expansion of intake capacity, no support for rehoming systems, and no measurable outcomes required. Enforcement alone has never solved an animal population issue anywhere.

Part two appropriates funding only to facilitate the collection of chickens already caught, which highlights the fundamental flaw in the Bill. It focuses on what happens after animals are trapped, not on why populations continue to grow or why those animals will go—or where those animals will go. Without a comprehensive plan, collection simply becomes a revolving door.

Members, this Bill attempts to manage a complex ecological and community issue through prohibition and penalties. That approach has historically failed. Where's the root drivers? Abandonment, breeding cycles, organized cruelty, and the lack of compassionate intake capacity. Real solutions require partnership. They require investment and compassionate infrastructure. They require coordination with nonprofits that are already doing this work every day.

Troopers Chicken Rescue stands ready to partner with the state, counties, and agencies to build a long-term strategy grounded in prevention, compassionate care, community education, and measurable outcomes, not temporary displacement. I emailed each of the members of the Agricultural Committee with a snapshot of our team and our organization's plan and intentions.

We are not only a group of your constituents with compassionate intentions, we are highly qualified to partner with the state to solve this problem the right way. I have not received any responses. This is Hawaii. We are supposed to be better than everywhere else when it comes to care for the land and the creatures that inhabit it.

Let's start acting like it. We urge this body not to advance this Bill built on enforcement-first assumptions that will not deliver lasting results. Instead, we ask you to partner with us and the rescue community to design a comprehensive, compassionate framework that actually reduces populations and conflict over time. We have the operational framework built.

All we need is your partnership. Please see my written testimony, visit trooperschickenrescue.org, or call me and I will be happy to discuss. Mahalo for your time, your leadership, and your commitment to thoughtful policymaking.

Thank you very much, Mr. Burns, and thank you for your good work. Final testimony that we are to hear is from Greg Misakian. And Mr. Misakian, your testimony is posted on the website.

I saw it within the last 30 minutes. I looked just a few minutes ago, but 30 minutes ago it wasn't there, so thank you so much. I appreciate that. I don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. I will—I don't know what happened to it, but it wasn't there. So, again, Greg Misakian.

Aloha to the Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Mahalo to Brian for providing the technical evaluation of why this Bill should not move forward. I understand the intent and I've said this in my testimony; I fully understand the intent of the Bill. We have noise from the roosters; we have noise from the trash trucks.

I just testified on that in another hearing today. Were inundated with noise throughout Waikiki or some of the, you know, suburban areas. But that doesn't give anyone the right to decide to take an animal that is classified one way and then classify it as a pest.

And knowing that it's going to potentially be shot at more or euthanized by gas, which is what they do, if these are collected in traps or whatever, or just abused and mistreated. So, I completely understand the intent of this measure. And my background zoom is just for today.

There's three baby chickens here that I rescued with the help of others. One, one evening when I was going to Sam's Club. One of them is a little shy, so I'm going to tilt over, and you can see he's not facing, he or she, but one of them followed me while I was walking.

And he let me know that his siblings were actually trapped in a storm drain. And I was able to get help. I'm not going to go into the details, but I was able to get help and get the storm drain lifted. It was very heavy. And rescue the, the three—well, two baby chickens.

And those chickens are now on private property, a farm or private property. We just want to have aloha in our hearts and spirit when we make decisions like this. So, I understand, but mitigate.

Summarize, please, Mr. Misakian.

Thank you. Work with Brian. Work with me if you could. I can assist because I also do some rescues for other fowl. We have 11 baby ducks going to a sanctuary today. So, I appreciate if you could do that, and please, I oppose this Bill strongly. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. So, we, members and members of the public, we've received 20 testimonies, five in support, 15 in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify an HB 2561? Yes, Angela Melody Young, please proceed.

Angela Melody Young, CARES, wishing to comment. So, I'd like to propose an amendment, because when the statute defines that chickens are pests, then the pest control companies can legally terminate and dispose of the chickens because of a statutory definition. So, that's what they're doing because they have the flexibility within the law to dispose of and determine pests.

So, and so, while chickens are pests and public nuisances to some people, chickens can also be productive in an agricultural context. So, for example, where chickens produce farm products like eggs. And so, I think a recommendation for this legislation to be considered can be a work group with DLNR.

So, DLNR has sanctuaries to mitigate wildlife, and it can provide sanctuaries for the chickens. And DOA manages agricultural productions. So, I think the issue is to mitigate the chickens, to move the chickens from urban and suburban areas to farms and sanctuaries for the purposes of agricultural production. So, I think it's an issue of management and, yeah, and it also could be very beneficial.

There's other jurisdictions, like in Europe, where they get chickens and it produces eggs for them.

Thank you.

My mom has a little chick sanctuary.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 25—excuse me, House Bill 1572—House draft 1, relating to aquaculture development.

This measure requires the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to establish a four-year restorative aquaculture development program to reduce aquaculture permit processing time, support aquaculture infrastructure expansion, and increase aquaculture workforce, pursue federal aquaculture grants, establish three pilot demonstration sites for restorative aquaculture, and convene a Restorative Aquaculture Advisory Council. And they should report to the Legislature.

First up, we have testimony from the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poe Poe, Members of the Committee. I'm Todd Lowe. I run the Aquaculture Development program at Department of Ag. We firmly support this Bill. Just for some information, restorative aquaculture is a little bit different than our typical commercial aquaculture.

It focuses on using indigenous seaweed and bivalves for their ecosystem services and for there—which is improving water quality, ecosystem restoration, and also blue carbon sequestration. It's a pretty big subject. We're fully—we think that this is, we consider it sort of a mirror to our regular aquaculture for food initiatives.

Also, I'll add that we were lucky enough to get an earmark from the Federal Government this year and for doing a feasibility study on restorative aquaculture, so that would align nicely with this current legislation. I'm here for any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lowe. Next, Charles Taylor, Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poe Poe, Members of the Committee. I am not Charles Taylor. I'm Kayleigh Isaigum, also with the Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources. Although this Bill is under the purview of Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, there is obvious overlap with Division of Aquatic Resources and so, that's why we're providing testimony.

We would like to stand on our written testimony reiterating our long standing support and implementation of restorative aquaculture initiatives and also requesting that the Department of Land and Natural Resources be included into an amendment to this Bill, requiring Department of Ag and Biosecurity to consult with the Department.

Thank you. Thanks very much, Mr. Isaigum. We've received a total of eight testimonies, six in support, two with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1572, HD 1? If not, questions, members? Seeing none. Thank you to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 2581, relating to emergency management.

This measure clarifies the types of events that constitute disasters and emergencies for the purposes of emergency management. First up, we have James Barros, SWAI Emergency Management Agency. Welcome, sir.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. James Barros, the Administrator for Haima. We provided written testimony in opposition of this Bill. During this time of uncertainty, with federal support and the role of FEMA, even the geopolitical nature of the Indo Pacific, we're very concerned that we would try to limit what an emergency would, would look like for, for Hawaii, just with all the uncertainty. Thank you, sir.

Thanks very much. Next, Wayne Chung Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii. Welcome, sir.

Good morning—good afternoon, Chair and the rest of the committee...We are in strong support of this measure. I did want to point out that none of the scenarios that HIEMA puts forward to, I guess... with this Bill, like none of those wouldn't be covered under the definition of disaster emergency.

So, I said it's going to create an imminent threat to the public health and so forth that could be remedied by timely action.

And to the extent those kinds of situations extend for longer periods, like that's when the Legislature can come in and use your prerogative to shape policy to distribute funds and uphold, frankly, the democratic process that is a foundation of our society. So, happy to answer any questions and otherwise respectfully urge you to pass this measure. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Tanaka.

Next, Drew Hara. Welcome, sir. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Drew Hara. Clarify my testimony of submitted on behalf of Earth Justice. So, we submitted testimony in support of this measure which I think introduces some necessary amendments to restore the proper constitutional balance between the Legislature and the Executive. I just want to highlight a few things for you.

One, the language in this Bill is taken—borrowed heavily—from House Bill 596 that was introduced last session and passed both the House and the Senate and was carried over to this year.

The other thing is it's really necessary at this point in response to the Supreme Court's Nicoa decision issued last September, in which the court broadly interpreted the emergency management statute to afford the Governor emergency powers to address any situation rationally related to public health, safety, or welfare.

We think that that is an over broad application and definition of emergency for purposes of that statue and that rational relation test really is one of the most lenient standards that you could apply in terms of judicial review and sets a really high burden for members of the public or others who wanted to challenge one of these emergency provisions. Just to respond to some of the concerns that HIEMA raised in their written testimony, I would point out for this Committee that chapter 127A already vests HIEMA and the Governor with a variety of emergency management powers that would be undisturbed by this measure.

So, these amended definitions of "disaster" and "emergency" really only serve to narrow the scope of disasters or emergencies that would trigger the governor's additional powers in an emergency period, including—and specifically the power to suspend any law.

So, this Bill would in no way prevent HIEMA from coordinating with the Legislature and the Executive on comprehensive planning, preparedness, or training, looking ahead at any sort of anticipated disasters.

And yeah, it's really just to address putting proper limitations and bringing these emergency powers back within the scope of what we believe was the original legislative intent of Chapter 127a. So, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Hara. We've received a total of 51 testimonies on this measure. 50 in support, one in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2581? If not, questions, members? Seeing none. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 2002, relating to neighborhood safety.

This measure establishes and appropriates funds for the Neighborhood Security Watch Grant Program to help fund certain activities and rental payments of established neighborhood security Watch groups and neighborhood citizen patrol groups that rent government owned facilities for a fee to carry out their duties.

On this measure, we have Jillian Anderson, Waikiki Neighborhood Board, in support, and Johnny May Perry, an individual in support. Is there anyone here wishing to testify In House Bill 2002? If not.

Angela Melody Young, CARES, strong favor of grants to help with public safety initiatives. I'm a fan of the Honolulu Police Department and the Neighborhood Security Walk and Citizens Patrol.

Thank you. Thanks very much. Any, anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2002? If not, questions, members?

Here on Zoom, Chair.

I already asked if there's any other testimony and I didn't hear from you, but please.