House Floor

Will the House come to order? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] Madam Speaker, 48 Members are present. Two are not present.

Item number two, reading of the journal. Representative Morikawa. Madam speaker, may this matter defer. So ordered. Item number three, messages from the Governor. Mr. Clerk, are there any messages from the Governor?

Madam speaker, there are none.

Item number four, Senate Communications. Mr. Clerk, are there any Senate communications?

Yes, Madam speaker, we are in receipt of communications transmitting the noted Senate bills, all having passed third reading in the Senate.

Representative Morikawa.

Madam Speaker, I move that the Senate bills laying on the Clerk's desk pass fast. First reading by title.

Representative Garcia.

Madam Speaker, I second the motion.

It has been moved and seconded that the Senate bills laying on the Clerk's desk pass first reading by title. We'll be taking a voice vote. All those in favor say Aye. All those opposed say no. The motion is carried. Said Senate bills passed. First reading. Members, are there any introductions?

Okay, we'll turn to the order of the day. Item number five, Reports of Standing Committees. Representative Morikawa. For the motion to suspend the rules.

Madam Speaker, I moved to suspend the rules of the House in order to consider certain House bills for third reading by consent Calendar.

Representative Garcia.

Madam Speaker, I second the motion.

Any questions? All those in favor say Aye. All those opposed say no. The motion is carried.

Representative Kahaloa.

Madam Speaker, I move to adopt Standing Committee reports numbers 921-26 through 967-26 as listed on pages 1 through 11, and that the accompanying House bills pass third reading.

Representative Morikawa.

Madam Speaker, I second the motion.

Members, any discussion on these items starting with Standing Committee report number 921, 922, 923. Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, I rise in support. Please. Thank you. In strong support, actually. But I do have one reservation during its this bill's movement through our House. It was turned into a General obligation bond to Fund this much needed building in on Molokai.

And my concern is with, of course, General obligation bonds when we should be raising needed revenue from the top 1% wealthiest households who are getting between 50 and $68,000 from the federal tax giveaways in the one big beautiful Bill starting this year. And they will be getting that for the next nine years.

I wish we could actually capture some of that revenue and Fund our buildings that way instead of on credit through General obligation bonds.

Thank you, Representative. Are you with reservations or in support?

Strong support with reservations.

Strong support with reservations, yes. So ordered. Thank you, Members. Any further discussion? Okay, next is standing Committee report. 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935. Representative Moraoka.

Reservations.

So ordered. Representative Alcos.

Same request.

So ordered. Representative Shimizu.

Reservations.

So ordered. Report. 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947 top of page 8. 948, 949, 950. Representative Garcia.

With reservations.

So order. 951, 952, 953. Representative Garcia.

In opposition.

Please proceed.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Let me first begin by saying clearly that feeding our Keiki is indeed important. No child should go hungry at school. And I strongly support programs that ensure children from struggling families have access to meals. In fact, we already have those programs in place.

Families who cannot afford school meals already qualify for free lunch through existing programs, whether they're receiving housing assistance, SNAP benefits or other forms of support. Over the years, we've expanded the eligibility so that families who once qualified for reduced prices now have free lunch. But this bill goes far beyond helping families in need.

Instead, it asks taxpayers to subsidize school lunches for families who are fully capable of providing meals for their own children. This is not the proper role of government and it is not fair to the hard working taxpayers of Hawaii who are already struggling with one of the highest cost of living in the nation.

And let me address the argument that might be said that opposing this bill means that someone would not support feeding kids. I actually grew up on free school lunch from a family who was on housing assistance and received those benefits. So I know firsthand how important these programs are for families who truly need the help.

And that's exactly why I want to protect those programs. The program already exists and it already works for those who need it. What this Bill does is it shifts the responsibility of capable parents onto the backs of Hawaii's overburdened taxpayers. It subsidizes a responsibility that many families are already able to meet on their own.

At a time when local families are overburdened by Hawaii's taxes and rising costs, we should be careful stewards of our taxpayer dollars. Hawaii's working families deserve a government that prioritizes responsible spending and focuses resources where they are truly needed. For those reasons, no vote.

Representative La Chica.

Thank you, Madam speaker, and strong support.

Please proceed.

Madam speaker, this bill builds upon the incredible work that the Legislature did last year in expansion of free school meals to those who are in reduced price lunch and beginning this next school year, those on 300% of the federal poverty level.

However, we know that there's still so many Alice families, in fact, half of Hawaii families are reporting difficulty maintaining consistent access to healthy and nutritious food.

This is so important in these times when we know that SNAP benefits are getting cut, there's inflation and rising grocery costs and overall, just a lack of support for our families is something that we shouldn't be looking at right now. In fact, it continues to assist our families and our kids.

We know that research shows that for the states that have been able to do this successfully, we've seen better student outcomes, we've seen improved attendance. We also see improved behavior and test scores because no child should go to school hungry.

Universal school meals is the right thing to do to address food insecurity, improve student health and readiness to learn and support stronger academic outcomes. And I know encourage my colleagues to support this measure.

Representative Alcos.

In reservations.

With reservations?

Yes.

So ordered. Representative Kapela.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In strong support.

Please proceed.

I'd like to adopt the words of the Vice Chair of the Education Committee and thank her for her work on expanding free school meals. I would also like to say that many of the programs that were mentioned by our colleague from the west side of Oahu.

Those programs don't reach our charter school students. So as we've expanded free school meals within our local public school, traditional public schools. We've left out another section of public schools. Charter schools are public schools. And if we want to talk about responsible spending, caring for Keiki is probably the most responsible thing that we can do.

Thank you, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Madam speaker in opposition with a brief comment.

Please proceed.

I've made a speech on previous floor votes and I do agree that the children need to be fed. There's no question about it.

My thought on it is as we talk about charter schools that were missed or maybe gap income brackets that are missed, and we should address it specifically and not blanket everyone who may be able to afford it.

And just as we are looking at taxing higher income earners to pay more with that same thought, we should have consistency in applying ability to pay. So that. That's my argument on that. But again, every child should should be fed. There's no question about that. Thank you.

Representative Matayoshi.

Thank you, Speaker. I rise in support.

Please proceed.

A lot has been said about about this bill and I get it from my constituents as well. It's a difficult pill for people to swallow sometimes when you see families that you think are very wealthy sending their kids to public school. Not that we have a huge amount of those that possibly could afford to feed their kids.

One of the previous speakers mentioned the free and reduced school lunch program. And as a teacher myself who taught out on the west side of Oahu, I saw the kids who or I had a lot of students on free and reduced lunch.

The amount of income that you need to qualify for even the reduced lunch program for a family of four is about $60,000 a year. And I would argue that families of four making over $60,000 a year also could really use that support. We try in the Legislature so hard to give relief to working families.

We have so many ideas, schemes, programs, pilot programs in order to do this. I think that this is one of the. Giving a free meal to all students is one of the best ways to target those families that need additional support.

I think so many of our families that have school aged kids have additional burdens on their household income and could use that extra support. Now, are there, are there some families that are going to get additional support that they could have otherwise scraped by with? Sure.

But the amount of administrative burden in order to handle and just pick out those families that need that support is also another layer of government that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wouldn't want either. So this is a Way to simplify things.

This is a way to target those families with school age kids, up and coming families, families who are still probably early on in their careers not making a lot of money, having to deal and grapple with all of the problems, problems that young families with young kids have to deal with and giving them relief.

And it also gets rid of the stigma for people who are on free and reduced lunch that that I saw in my own classroom. It's getting rid of that stigma for those kids and allowing all kids to be equal, at least in this. So very much in support. Thank you.

Representative Grandinetti.

Thank you. I would like to in strong support and I'd like to adopt the words of the Chair of CPC as my own.

So ordered.

And I'd also just like to add that when, whenever we means test a program, people are necessarily left out. People who either make just a little bit too much to qualify or who are already overburdened and don't even seek out the application to become eligible.

And in the case of a program like universal free school meals or in the case of school meals, when we leave people out, we are leaving out children. That's something I think is unconscionable. And I strongly support this bill.

Thank you, Representative Hussey.

Thank you Madam speaker. And I appreciate the. Thank you to the minority floor. I'm sorry in support with comments. I want to appreciate the minority floor leader for kicking off this conversation and also thank you to the previous speaker because the question of means testing is something that we really should think about.

I wanted to reflect for just one moment if I could about our experience during Covid and I was a part of a labor union which took it upon itself to work with other organizations to distribute food to members and to people in the general community.

And what I saw in, you know, in the car after car of people coming to collect food from these food distributions, it was all different kinds of folks in all different kinds of vehicles, all different sorts of, you know, expensive cars, lesser priced cars.

And the fact is everyone needed food and I think the fact that we didn't means test those kinds of community programs meant that it was truly universal.

It also meant that the people who had the money to go and buy food in the market that they were able to take that same dollar and spend it on other things that was important to their family. So I don't see this as a waste and I do appreciate the concerns from the minority.

But I do think that it's important that we as much as possible not means test these important programs. And I also want to remind us just in closing, that we don't means test education. Education is universal and I think that's a really important principle for us to stand by. Thank you.

Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support and ask that the words of the representatives from Kalihi Kahala and Kaneohibi entered into the record as my own.

So ordered. Representative Marten.

Thank you. I rise in support and want to echo all of the, the points that were made already about feeding our kids and wanted to just add one more thing that was really brought to my attention by the child advocates that have been visiting us in the past is that sometimes even for families who are not on reduced prices lunches, they do not get their parents are not organized or not focused or whatever and don't pay for it.

And even kids from middle class families that might be able to afford it do not always have access to the food. And this would be something that we just know all students, all children that we value are able to focus on their studies while they're at school because they have been fed. Thank you.

Representative Garcia. Second time.

Second time still in opposition. I appreciate the debate and that's what this floor is for. It should be used more charter schools. I think that's a great part of the bill to, to expand food access to our, our charter school students who currently don't have that. I think that that's a great part.

But why not extend it in the same way that currently exists in the public schools currently, and that is if you, for, for the free school lunch program or the reduced lunch program, which is also now free, but there is an income threshold. There are eligibility requirements for that.

We should extend those as well to, to the charter school programs. I hear a lot, Madam speaker, about taxing the rich and Taxing the rich. This bill subsidizes the rich.

And I'm not saying all, all, all kids who have to pay for lunch are from rich families, but there are rich families out there who will now be subsidized by this bill and food distributions.

Yes, I've done lots of volunteers work in various food lines and there are all kinds of vehicles that come through and families from the rich, middle class and poor. But this is a direct appropriation to Fund now all free school lunches. And we're looking at close to $30 million for this.

So in a time when, you know, people are crying left and right about cuts from the federal level, this and that, I believe this Bill by subsidizing the rich is just not good precedent. No vote.

Represent Matayoshi, second time.

Thank you. Still in support. I just want to make a couple other points that I guess forgot to make. This bill actually does help all families by making. So some of the most disruptive kids in my classes were the ones who were having a lot of trouble at home. Also, if we were very hungry, skip meals.

Some of the only meals that they had were in school. So that's why we had wiki breakfast. We had breakfast, wiki breakfast, lunch. Those were their three meals in the day. And not everyone who qualifies for a free and reduced lunch necessarily gets one.

Our school spent a lot of time and a lot of resources tracking down those parents to get them to fill out the proper forms to get their kids the free and reduced lunch that they would ordinarily qualify for. And that was a lot of time, a lot of resources, and sometimes we couldn't find them.

A lot of the times these kids come from households that's very difficult to contact. And I tried to contact a lot of. A lot of households in my time in teaching. And I can tell you, and all teachers can tell you a lot, you don't always have a line.

And I went to Costco once to go meet with a parent because I couldn't find a number for them. If that kid, if that student needed a free and reduced lunch form signed, there was no way to get to their parent to get them to sign and fill out that form.

So to say that all free and reduced lunch people who qualify are necessarily getting them is completely false. I think any school can tell you that. And again, this is a bill to feed all kids equally.

The most disruptive kids in my classes were the kids who weren't eating, who had hunger and other concerns on their minds, and they would disrupt the class for everybody.

So even if your child is not one of those students who would necessarily qualify for the free meal, you should want every kid in your child's class to be well Fed so that everyone in that class has a good chance to learn. One kid can disrupt a class.

Those are the kinds of kids we're trying to feed so that your kid can learn. Thank you.

Representative Souza.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in strong support.

Please proceed.

I would like the words of the CPC Chair both times to be entered into the record as my own. And also the Vice Chair of Education.

So ordered.

And you know, I think that we need to feed the kids. There's.

There's nothing better that we can do with our taxpayer dollars than to feed our keiki in our schools, especially the keiki in my community on the west side, where the more vulnerable population here on Oahu, Jesus said in Matthew 19:14, Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Thank you, Representative Templo.

Thank you. Madam speaker in support, please proceed. May I have the words of the Chairs for HSH, CAA and CBC both times, and also the Vice Chair for EDN as they were my own and brief comments. So I was.

I'm from Kalihi and I was on free lunch and I had a lot of friends who could afford free lunch. But despite that, we would share my lunch because whatever reasons it was. So let's give free lunch to everyone and ensure that everyone our keiki is being fed. Thank you,

Representative Olds.

Thank you. Speaker in support, I would like the words of the Chair of CPC and the Vice Chair of Education in the Journal as my own. Thank you.

So ordered. Representative Todd.

Hello. In support. Oh, sorry, it's been a while. Madam Speaker in support.

Please proceed.

Instead of a rousing speech in favor of this, which I'm prepared to give, I did want to just maybe clarify a brief point because it will come up on a number of other bills. Charter schools do currently receive their fair share of food money.

It's just distributed in a way where it's not a line item. So it is very confusing. But the same is true for a number of other expenses.

And for the last nine years here, I was under the impression that that was not the case and that they were being shorted, but I can assure you that they are not. It's just a little bit clumsy in the way that it's handled in the budget. Thank you.

Representative Poepoe.

Thank you. Madam Speaker. In support.

Please proceed.

I just wanted to add that schools will usually prepare enough food for all students every day anyway, and it's a matter of whether that food gets put on a plate for a child or it gets thrown in the trash and Fed to the pigs. Thank you.

Okay, Members. Representative Woodson.

Thank you, Madam speaker in strong support.

Please proceed.

May I please adopt the words from the Chair of the Vice Chair of the Committee on Education first?

So ordered.

Thank you. And I just want to quickly just say, just cutting away all decoration. This is a policy decision. Will this policy prescription improve learning outcomes? Education has nexus to everything. And so if we can better support education, then we reduce our costs on things like the criminal justice system, like things like food stamps.

These types of aspects that we use to support our society. Specifically regarding this bill, as the vice speaker, the. Excuse me, the vice chair had already mentioned the jurisdictions that have used this in their schools. They see jumps in their proficiency rates, 5%, 7%, 12% increases in their, in their test scores.

And so for these reasons, I think it makes sense to support this proposal and I'm asking my colleagues humbly to, to do the same.

Representative Tam.

Thank you, Madam speaker in support.

Please proceed.

I would just like to have the Chair of education's words into the journal as if they are my own. And a brief comment.

So ordered.

When I looked at this bill before us, I see it as a way to increase our education scores and one of the best things that we can do for our economy is to provide our economy with a very educated workforce. Thank you.

Representative Reyes Oda.

In support.

Please proceed.

As a teacher, I experienced the same things as the representative from Kaneohe because we worked at the same school. I just came afterwards. But really what I want to talk about is the numbers of people who ask for food in 96706 in Ewa beach this summer.

They had a program across, I think, I don't know if it was across the state, but I know across the island called Kalkao for Keiki where there were sites that food was given out to kids and families who signed up. And I want to talk about the numbers in, in Ewa Beach.

The Ewa site was the largest site that they had given out food and it was for 1,569 kids who had signed up to 604 families. But that's not the only number. They turned away 854 kids from 392 schools because they registered late and there wasn't enough food.

So food is a big issue even for areas like Ewa beach that look like middle class areas that are gentrified houses and nice rows and great looking areas are look like excellent places to raise kids.

But the issue with food is trying to reach the kids through schools because people in our, the middle class family in our areas need help. Thank you.

Okay, Members turning to standing Committee report 954.

Representative Garcia.

With reservations.

So ordered. Report 955, 956 Representative Garcia.

In opposition.

Please proceed.

Madam speaker. This measure authorizes the Department of Education to establish a climate literacy certificate program and appropriates for funding to push climate change coursework in our schools. At a time when Hawaii's education system is already struggling, I believe this is the wrong priority. Hawaii continues to rank near the bottom nationally in reading and math proficiency.

We have students who are graduating from high school who can barely read. That should concern all of us. Instead of spending time and taxpayer dollars on creating new programs centered around climate narratives, we should be focusing on the fundamentals. Our students need stronger instruction in reading, writing, mathematics, and critical thinking.

If we want to prepare students for the real world, there are far more practical subjects that we should prioritize. Financial literacy so students can understand Budgeting, taxes and debt. Civics to understand how government works. Career and technical education that prepares them for real jobs. Skills like entrepreneurship, personal finance, and workforce readiness.

Until we address the serious gaps in core learning across our public schools, adding new ideological coursework is simply not the direction we should be going. For those reasons, no vote.

Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Madam speaker. In opposition.

Please proceed.

Can I have the words of the minority floor leader be entered in the journal as my own? And can I add brief comment, please?

So ordered.

Based on what was just presented, Definitely. Education, as the Education Chair so eloquently explain, is the basis of so much of our society. What what my opposition is on this bill is, as I had related in comments yesterday regarding HB 1774, I think the crisis of disaster preparedness is more important than climate change.

It is related to climate change, but I think specifically the subject matter of disaster preparedness and hitting our youth is a more important subject than climate change. So that's the basis of my comments and my opposition. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Represent Martin thank you Madam speaker. In strong support. Please proceed. I just want to note that our schools do try to address all different types of learners and we have the full range of programs.

We have students that excel in our schools and go on to have very prestigious careers in our state and we need to cater to all different ones. And schools do provide opportunities for students to learn.

And in the case of climate literacy, this is the issue that will impact our state budget more than anything else that is happening right now and for generations and generations to come.

If our students want to learn about this global phenomenon that is going to impact the way they're able to live the rest of their lives and that of their children so that they can demand policies that address it and try to reduce the impacts that they'll experience, then I think this is a very good investment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Representative Quinlan.

In support Madam Speaker.

Please proceed.

Climate change is not a narrative. Climate change is not an ideology. Climate change is an observable fact supported by millions and millions of data Points

Representative Hussey.

Like to add to the previous in support Madam speaker thank you very much. Wanted to add to the comments of the previous speaker that we just recently heard HSCR939 which is related to heat exposure for students. I would very much like our students to understand why we passed that bill and so I support this bill.

Representative Garcia.

In opposition Second time Climate change is real. The climate has always been changing. It will always continue to change and we have no control over that. I know there are studies on both sides and scientists go back and forth but the prevalent common narrative pushed in most climate change circles today is one sided.

It does not account for all the science. The climate has always been changing and it will always change.

Represent Martin thank you Madam Speaker. I just wanted to point out that sometimes there are not two sides still in support. Still the support. Sometimes there is one side based on facts and one side that is not based on facts. It's not a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of observable trends that are having an enormous impact on our state and globally. Thank you.

Souza in support Madam speaker and I would like the words of the previous speaker and the minor the majority leader entered into the record is my own. Thank you.

So ordered. Representative Olds.

In support. I just want to note that this bill makes it not mandatory but optional for students to do this if they choose. Thank you.

Representative Pierick.

In opposition.

Please proceed.

I just want to note that the words from the Representative Kaneohe are correct. I agree with what she said.

Standing Committee report 957, 958, 959.

Representative Garcia.

Reservations.

So ordered. Report 960, 961, 962 top of page 11. 963.

Representative Iwamoto.

Just want to note my reservations.

So ordered. Report 964. Representative Iwamoto.

Reservations.

So ordered port 965, 966, 967. Going back to Representative Ilagon 966. Any discussion on 966? Okay. Standing Committee port 967.

Representative Iligon.

Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand in support with brief comment.

Please proceed.

Thank you Madam Speaker. I speak on this Bill to give some clarification. The first clarification is that the intention of this Bill is to close a loophole for the post production in the film tax credit. However, the language of the bill actually includes all productions.

What I want to share with my colleagues Madam speaker is that I want to follow this bill and to ensure that the language is solely for post production.

And the reason why we're trying to close this loophole regarding the post production is because last year White Lotus for season three came to Hawaii and did post production and a timeshare in Kauai.

And they estimated that the cost for that post production, which is editing sounds so on was estimated to be 2 million which gave a tax credit of around 550,000 to the white Lotus which they did all their primary photography and filming in Thailand.

So what we want to ensure is we close the loophole for tax credits for post productions that they would just come to Hawaii and not do any sort of filming. And the requirement that we put in this Bill is 15% principal photography.

I just want to give that clarification to this body, Madam speaker, because I do understand that language includes all production, but a real intention is only for post production. Thank you.

Okay, Members, Representative Morikawa for the vote.

Madam speaker on the measure before us, all majority Members vote I with the exception of the following on page 5, Standcom Report Number 934HB Number 1616 HD1 Rep. Iwamoto votes no. On page 9, Standcom Report Number 956HB Number 1925 HD1 Rep. Kong votes no.

On page 10, Standcom Report Number 962 HB Number 2344 HD1 Rep. Iwamoto votes no. Thank you.

Representative Garcia.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the measures before us, all minority Members vote Aye with the exception of the following on page 3. SCR927 House Bill 2594 HD1 Rep. Pierick votes no. SER 928 HB 2551 HD1 Rep. Pierick votes no. On page 4 SCR933 HB16.04HD2 Rep. Pierick votes no. On page 5 SCR936 House Bill 2233 HD1 Rep. Pierick votes no.

SCR937 HB2241 HD1 Reps Garcia and Pierick vote no. On page 6 SCR938 HB1891 House Draft 1 Rep. Peric votes no. On page 7 SCR944 HB1595 HD1 Representatives Garcia, Shimizu and Pierick vote no.

SCR945 House Bill 1811 HD1 Representative Pierick votes no. On page 9 SCR953HB1779HD1 Representatives Garcia and Shimizu vote no. And on SCR956 House Bill 1925 House Draft 1.

Representatives Alcos, Garcia, Shimizu and Pierick vote no. And lastly on page 11, SCR 967 HB 1941 House Draft 1. Representative Pierick votes no.

Members, have all votes been cast? Okay said. House Bills pass Third reading. Representative Kahaloa.

Madam Speaker, I move to adopt Standing Committee reports numbers 968-26 through 1011-26 as listed on pages 12 through 21 and that the accompanying House Bills pass Third reading.

Representative Morikawa.

Madam speak. I second the motion.

Members, any discussion on these items starting with standing Committee report. 968, 969, 970 Representative Iwamoto.

Reservations.

So ordered. 971, 972, 973 Representative Shimizu.

Reservations.

So ordered. 974, 975, 976, 977, 978 Representative Garcia.

With reservations.

So ordered. Representative Reyes Oda.

With reservations.

So ordered. Representative Gedeon.

Same request.

So ordered. Represent Matayoshi.

In strong support.

Please proceed.

I am very proud of our House for continuously passing a bill to try to regulate flavored vaping products every single year. We've. We've been very consistent and, and honestly I can say that's one of the best things that we do every year is to.

To make an attempt to try to get a hold of flavored vaping products that are making their ways into the hands of our kids, that are addicting another generation of Hawaii to nicotine, which is, I think everyone can agree, a highly addictive substance.

It's this bill, honestly, I think is one of the most worthwhile things we do every year because we're trying to get a handle of the situation not only for the long term health effects that are going to hit Hawaii in the coming years and decades, but also in.

To try to do something to help our educational system, which is just getting ravaged by students addicted to nicotine who can't. Who can't concentrate on their studies because their brain is telling them or trying to figure out when they can escape class for the next hit of nicotine.

I was at an elementary school in my district recently and I would find flavored vaping cartridges on the ground, in the playground, in the halls. It's an. If you ask any teacher, if you ask any principal in our state, all of them will tell you that flavored vaping is a problem.

All of them will tell you that nicotine is making its way into the bloodstreams of all of our students or maybe not all of our students, but many of our students and disrupting the classroom and learning environment. So I'm proud of us.

I hope springs eternal that it will become law at some point in some form. But I think the House is really doing its part every year to push this issue, to highlight this issue and highlight the ill effects that it's had that that flavored vaping products are having on our state and on our keiki.

I also want to point out that the United States banned flavored cigarettes for the exact same reason decades ago. I'm not sure, I still am not sure why that we're not doing the same for e-cigarettes which are which is the exact same addictive substance again in candy flavored, gummy bear flavored making its way to our youth. Thank you.

Representative La Chica.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In support.

Please proceed.

And I'd like to adopt the words of our CPC Chair into the journal as if they were my own. I'd also like to share that I too, I'm very proud of our CPC Chair's work over the years in continuing to introduce the flavor ban for vaping products.

I remember working with our CPC Chair on this issue before my first child and that child is now nine years old. And so colleagues, now is the time for us to get this finally passed. Let's not raise another generation that'll be addicted to to tobacco products.

And also like to point out that all the counties have already passed trigger bans and so should this pass, they'll be able to proceed with their own flavor bans in each of their respective counties.

Turning next to standing Committee report 979. Representative Iwamoto.

Madam speaker, do you mind if we go back to 974?

Okay, let's finish. 979. Any discussion? Okay, we'll go back to standing Committee report 974 on page 13. Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. I rise in opposition.

Please proceed.

Thank you. Yesterday I spoke in opposition to a bill that was very similar to this. It was about allocating taxpayer funds to programs to uplift the economy. This one. This bill seeks to appropriate taxpayer dollars to develop the defense industry ecosystem locally.

The military industrial complex, specifically the war industrialists are some of the most profitable corporations. Defense spending comprises almost 52% of the total US discretionary budget.

There's a little bit of an absurdity that the defense industry, backed by $900 billion a year of federal taxpayer dollars, would need our state taxpayers to subsidize the development of of the of that industry. Locally, the residents of Hawaii have already contributed more than their fair share.

There's lost lands, environmental degradation, and unreimbursed impact funding for our DOE. For these reasons, I stand in opposition. Thanks.

Okay, Members are at the top of page 15. Standing Committee Report 980. Representative Amato.

Reservations.

So ordered. Report 981, 982, 983. Representative Garcia.

Reservations.

So ordered. 984. Represent Garcia.

With reservations.

So ordered. 985 Representative Iwamoto.

Reservations.

So ordered. Representative Gedeon.

985 I rise in opposition.

Please proceed.

I appreciate the intent of this bill. Promoting safety in our waters is important. I've been spear fishing it for over 20 years, and the dive community understands the risks that come with breath hold diving. However, very little testimony came from the spearfishing community. And while I spoke to other divers, many hadn't even heard of this bill.

And not one spear fisherman I spoke to thought it was a good idea. It's another example of creating laws for an activity without meaningful feedback from the people who actually participate in it. Spearfishing is taught through mentorship. Sorry?

Safety in spearfishing is taught through mentorship and dive partners, not through a label, engraving or plaque on a spear gun or three prong. I also have over 20 years of experience in the print industry. Spear guns, pole spears, and three punks.

They take a beating in salt water and the labels, plaques and so on will eventually wear down, peel off, and end up in the ocean and possibly in the belly of the very fish we hunt and eat. So while I do Appreciate the intent of this bill. I will be a no vote. Thank you.

Representative Garcia.

In opposition. I'd like to adopt the words of the previous speaker and a brief comment. Save the fish, corals and turtles. No vote.

Representative Muraoka.

Reservations.

So ordered.

Standing Committee report 896, 986. Excuse me. 986. Representative Muraoka.

With reservations.

Reservations.

So ordered. Representative Reyes Oda.

So ordered. Representative Pierick.

Thank you. In opposition.

Please proceed.

Okay, so this bill is not a good idea. I really encourage our my fellow Members to please vote no on this bill. We don't want our state going in this direction. This is not good.

Standing Committee report 987, 988, 989. Representative Garcia.

Reservations.

So ordered. 990. 991. Oh, excuse me. 990. Representative Shimizu.

Yes. 990. Thank you, madam Speaker. Support with reservations and a brief comment, please.

Please proceed.

You know this. This bill is making a change that I'm willing to try. I think, as has been discussed on this floor, that we are trying to come up with ideas that will improve systems and outcomes.

What I'd like to see on this bill is because it could be a significant change and I think the opposition testimony did reflect that it is a change that is significant.

I would like to require reports to the Legislature that would capture this data and measure the effectiveness of this change and related to that at a sunset so that we could again look at how is this change really making a difference and not be locked into it. So that's my reservations on it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Representative Kila.

Reservations, Madam speaker, and permission to enter insert written comments into the journal.

So ordered. Representative Tarnas.

In support.

Please proceed.

Thank you. I wanted to make it clear that our own Hawaii state judiciary affirmed that that as a matter of practice, family courts across the state already rarely impose fines, fees or costs on youth and their parents.

The Federal Department of Justice has confirmed that eliminating the unjust imposition of fines and fees is one of the most expeditious ways for jurisdictions to support the success of youth and low income individuals, honor constitutional and statutory obligations, reduce racial disparities in the Administration of justice and ensure greater justice for all.

In Hawaii, 56% of youth adjudicated in Hawaiian juvenile proceedings are Native Hawaiian and indigenous youth from the Micronesian islands. An estimated $40,000 in juvenile financial penalties are assessed against Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander youth every year.

Research shows that courts and localities that charge youth fees and fines often spend significant resources trying to collect the money from primarily low income families who are unable to pay. So this Bill appropriately shifts accountability toward community service, restorative approaches and culturally grounded ina based programs that strengthen connection to culture, place and community.

These approaches are much more consistent with best practices and youth development and long term behavior change while still preserving meaningful accountability. And I want to make it clear to Members this bill does not prohibit restitution. Orders relating to victim restitution are still available to the Family Court under this bill. So I urge all Members to support it.

Thank you, Speaker.

Representative Souza.

In support. And I'd like the words of the Judiciary Chair entered into the record as my own.

So ordered. Thank you. Report number 991, 992. Representative Iwamoto.

Madam Speaker, I rise. Pursuant to House Rule 62.5.

Please proceed.

Thank you. I am requesting a recusal due to substantial personal financial conflicts of interest with this particular bill.

Please state your conflict of interest.

Thank you. I own a substantial amount of shares in what's called Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin EFT. When this bill came up on second reading, I thought it was a mutual fund because that's how it's listed in my bank statement. But it's not. It's an EFT.

It's much more similar to owning Bitcoin without having the responsibility of protecting the blockchain or the code or whatever that part is. But my interest is substantial. I have since the last time on this bill that I tried to get a recusal. I didn't meet with the.

The Representative Yamora, I think that is sufficient to describe why you're requesting to be recused. So pursuant To House Rule 62.5, each Member, as an elected representative of their district, has the obligation or duty to vote on measures before the House unless the Member is recused or excused from voting. I'm reading directly from the rule.

A Member may be recused or excused from voting when the Member has a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest does not arise where the measure applies to a broader class. Also, pursuant to House Rule 54.4, no Member shall refrain from voting unless excused pursuant to Rule 62, which is the conflict of interest rule.

This I just referenced, so I understand the clarification. I appreciate the clarification about the nature of the interest that you hold in a type of cryptocurrency. However, this law, this proposed bill, would apply to all cryptocurrencies, not a specific type. And you are also a Member of a broad class of cryptocurrency interest holders.

Therefore, the ruling is that you do not have a conflict of interest, and that will remain in effect for the rest of session.

Thank you, Madam speaker. Pursuant to Rule 62.6, I do appeal the ruling of the speaker, and I ask for a floor vote, a roll call vote, a roll call vote on this matter.

Representative Iwamoto, just for clarification, and also for the Members, whenever there's an appeal of the ruling of the Chair, it's a hand vote. So Members will be requested to raise their hands if they support the ruling of the Chair or if they do not support the ruling of the Chair.

It's a transparent way of knowing who votes which way. I just want to be clear to everybody, it's not a voice vote. It. It is a raising of the hands. Roll call votes would lead to the same result. Just take a little bit longer.

And may I speak to my move to appeal? Yes. Okay. Thank you so much. So, basically, I know there was some confusion speaking with some of my colleagues after we did this. It was that they were confused because it was a mutual fund and they understand mutual fund funds to be excluded.

However, as I explained, this is an etf. After our last deliberation, I did speak with the Ethics Commission, and I said, hey, do you remember when I was on the. On the Board of Education for five years when I had a personal financial. A substantial personal financial conflict of interest.

Can you stick to the issue before us, the cryptocurrency?

Yes, yes. But I'm all. But the issue really before us is whether or not I have a conflict that should be. I'm actually speaking to the appeal of your decision to say that I don't have a conflict or my conflict is waivable. And I'm actually asserting that I don't think it should be.

And also you're citing the rules, which we have in the past, even though we've had rules we've actually voted for on matters that were contrary to the rules, such as when we voted to allow the Vice speaker.

Represent Iwamoto, if you can stick to the matter at hand, which is the ruling that there is no conflict of interest.

Point of clarification, Madam Speaker.

Please proceed.

Is the motion to appeal for the appeal to the Chair, does it require a second?

No, it does not. Any Member can request the appeal under Rule 62. Please proceed, representative.

Thank you. Just to clarify, in every other board or elected body in the state of Hawaii, Border Commission, the Ethics Commission prevails, they can say when you have to recuse yourself due to A substantial personal financial conflict of interest here in the Legislature.

We've asked the, we've asked the people of Hawaii to trust us to let us police our own behavior, our own conflicts. And so we've created these rules. However, the rules that we adopt, we've violated our own rules. For instance, when we allowed the vice speaker to sit on standing committees.

Representative I think that's going a little bit further than this issue here of a conflict of interest and whether or not your interest as a cryptocurrency holder qualifies under our rules. Yes.

And, but there's also, you cited the rules saying the rules don't allow me to be recused.

And I'm asserting that we've, by taking a vote, we actually are participating in saying, hey, we're gonna, we're gonna stand to the side of the rules, as we did when we voted to allow the vice speakers to sit on three standing committees.

I think you're still going a little bit further outside of what is the matter before the body. So if you can just stick to the ruling on the conflict of interest, please. Representative Iwamoto.

But it is connected because the most what's happening right now is I'm asking my colleagues to vote against the speaker's ruling, which is no conflict. And you're citing the fact, you're citing the rules. Thank you, Speaker. And you're citing the rules. So the rules are definitely. And the way we conform with the rules are very, very important.

And the reason why we have rules. So this is all very important to what we do here. And so for those reasons, I do ask my colleagues to allow me to recuse myself.

And I just want to clarify when I say substantial, in my conversation with the Ethics Commission Director and I asked him, well, what is the substantial conflict? He said $300. And I just want to clarify that.

Madam speaker, point of order. I think we've strayed a little off topic. And also Kanalua.

Representative, please proceed.

Thank you. So in my, my substantial interest is $300,000. So this is, I'm just saying the public is watching. Don't force for the body to force me to vote on this issue when I'm asking you guys to please acknowledge that I have a personal, substantial, personal financial interest.

Also, when I asked him about if, when I was on the board of ED, if I had shares in Coca Cola, even $300 worth of shares, and if the board of ED voted on a policy.

Please stick to the cryptocurrency issue.

Trying to show an alignment of a similar situation in. That happens.

Representative Shimizu.

A point of inquiry.

Please proceed.

In understanding this situation. I understand that the house rules. And.

Rep. Shimizu. Do you have a question for the Speaker or for Rep. Iwamoto?

I have a question for the Speaker.

Okay, I'll come to you afterwards.

Okay. Thank you, Speaker.

Representative Iwamoto.

Again, I'm trying to draw a parallel analysis of what is happening here and to show how far from standards and ethics this body is by not allowing me to recuse myself. Again, the ethics commission.

Representative Iwamoto. The standard for conflict of interest under the code of ethics in HRS Chapter 84 does not apply to the Legislature. And so the ethics commission does not interpret our house rules and our conflicts of interest. So that's why that particular item of discussion is not relevant to this issue of.

Under our house rules, Rule 62, whether or not you have a conflict of interest. If you can just stick to our rules. Yes, please.

Well, again, when we say let's stick to our rules, and I assert that many times we violated our own rules, so our rules are only as good as we say they are. Right. That we vote on. For instance, again, when we voted to have you as speaker.

Vice speaker, it's confusing because you're serving as speaker right now, but when we voted to.

Madam speaker, point of order.

Please state your point.

The Representative from Kakaoko has now exceeded her time.

I think I made my point.

Thank you. Rep. Iwamoto. Members, is there any further discussion? Representative Todd. Thank you.

Madam speaker, do I have to state a position? Does this work?

I think that's helpful.

Okay. I'd like to oppose. That makes sense. Okay.

Oppose the appeal.

Yes. Thank you.

You know, I actually had a little bit of time today because we had our hearings wrap up yesterday. So I did want to kind of get into it because I did make a similar request in my first couple of years and kind of got dismissed quickly.

So I wanted to give it some due consideration when speaking to broadness of class. I was curious as to how many bitcoin owners we had here in our state, and it actually lines up almost identically to the number of homeowners we have in our state. It's about 285,000 of us. It is a very broad class.

But beyond that, it's. If we're speaking to the actual interest on whether there is a conflict of interest, this measure will not impact the cost of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's market cap is $1.4 trillion. This is not even a blip. On the radar, it will not register whatsoever.

This will not impact the cost, and therefore, there is no conflict of interest because this will not have a direct financial impact on the petitioner. Beyond that. Even if we kind of move beyond that and consider what our role is year we're about to pass 20 house housing bills. Unless they all die, it's possible.

And many of us are homeowners. And if we're not, we're renters or our close family members are homeowners, and we have a much more direct financial interest in homeownership and the cost of housing. Many of our bills will have a tangible impact on the cost of housing.

We have a conveyance tax ill that will come up on Tuesday that will directly have tax implications for anyone buying or selling a home. If we were to apply the same logic and recuse ourselves from those measures, we would not be able to do business here.

So I think if, in the case of someone having even expansive holdings, there would need to be such a direct interest and such a direct financial impact that it became difficult to actually weigh in honestly on something, and I do not think that this rises to that. Thank you.

Okay, Members, a roll call vote has been requested. All those in favor of a roll call vote, please signify by raising your hands. Mr. Clerk, is there a sufficient number of votes?

Madam speaker, we count 10 votes in favor. That is a sufficient number.

Okay, Members, we are going to take a roll call vote. Vote Aye. If you are in favor of the Chair's ruling that there is no conflict of interest. Vote no if you are opposed to the Chair's ruling. Mr. Clerk.

Oh, so I rise to a point of privilege of the House. Madam Speaker,

Representative, Souza. We don't recognize those types of points of privilege.

I'll just rise to a point of parliamentary inquiry.

You do have a question? Yes. Okay, what is your question?

My question is that just as an example, I don't disagree that there is no conflict of interest, and I agree with the Speaker's ruling, but based on the rule, it can be interpreted differently.

So I guess my question is, is the question really if there is a conflict of interest, or is the question that the representative from Kakaako may not be able to recuse herself? Because I do agree that there's no

conflict, but I do agree that the representative from Kakaako may recuse herself based on the vagueness of Rule 62.5.

Oh, okay. I see. So you're asking about sequestration before the body. Yes. So the question before the body is the appeal of the Chair's ruling that both actually. That there.

One, there is no conflict of interest, and therefore, two, you are not allowed to recuse yourself from the vote pursuant to the rule that I mentioned earlier, which is Rule 54.4, that all Members must vote unless they are excused pursuant to Rule 62, conflict of interest.

So it's both that the Chair's ruling is on, and it's both that I believe are being appealed.

Well, thank you, Madam speaker, but I disagree with that assessment only because I do think.

Oh. Rep. Souza is that a question?

It can be a question.

Well, if you have a feeling, you may vote your feelings.

I will actually.

My question is whether or not it is actually the same question, because it's actually two different questions based on the reading of the rule. Okay. And it would, I guess, basically warrant different answers depending on your interpretation of the rule.

Well, the way that the Chair has ruled is that there is one. No conflict of interest. And therefore, pursuant to Rule 54, the Member may not be allowed to refrain from voting. That is the ruling of the Chair, and that's what's being appealed.

Thank you.

Point of clarification. I just want to clarify my appeal pursuant to Rule 62.6. My appeal was appealing your decision to deny me the recusal. It wasn't. My appeal isn't about whether or not I have a conflict or whether or not it's part of a broad class.

My appeal was your determination that I am not allowed to recuse myself, so. So you said it was two questions or two decisions. It's only one decision that I am appealing. Thank you.

Okay, Members, we're going to be taking a roll call vote. Vote Aye. If you are Representative Shimizu.

Excuse me. Speak. Speaker, I had a question earlier, and was I able to ask a question?

Please proceed. Rep. Shimizu.

I understand the rules that we are held to, and I respect them. I understand the representative making a plea for her. I guess what she feels is important in recusing herself. So it would. Short of. Let me back up.

The question is, is there any other way that the representative who believes she needs to be recused cannot vote on the bill?

I think. Rep. Shimizu. That's a separate question and not directly relevant to the vote that we're about to take. So we can continue that conversation later. Representative Muraoka.

Madam speaker, this thing is going on long, and I confused. Can you retell me what I voted on? Can you clear up what we're about to vote on?

Sure. Members, the Chair has made a ruling that Representative Iwamoto does not have a conflict of interest as she is a Member of a broad class. Therefore, the recusal is not permitted under Rule 54, where all Members are required to vote. That is the ruling of the Chair, and that's what's being appealed.

So we'll be taking a roll call vote. Vote Aye if you are in favor of the Chair's ruling. Vote no if you are opposed to the chair's ruling. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Madam Speaker. Excuse me. I didn't hear my name called. I wanted to make sure that a yes vote was recorded for me. Thank you.

Madam speaker. We tally 45 Ayes, 3 noes and 2 are not present.

The appeal has been defeated. We are back to standing Committee Report 992. Representative Iwamoto.

I just want to invite you to wave me for the entire session so we don't have to go through this again.

Oh, yes, I believe that was stated previously. The ruling stands for the remainder of session. Standing Committee report 993. Representative Shimizu.

I'm sorry, speaker, can you go back to 992?

Okay. Standing Committee Report 992. Representative Shimizu.

In opposition with a comment.

Please proceed.

I support the idea of protecting the kupuna. AARP made their discussion points with me.

Representative Shimizu, are you talking about digital financial asset kiosks?

That's correct.

Okay, just making sure. Thank you. Please proceed.

And the reason that I'm opposed to this bill is that I believe there's a better bill coming through the Senate SB 2387. That instead of a total ban on these kiosks, which would affect legitimate certified permitted businesses that this SB2387 would provide better guidelines and enforcement versus a total ban.

So that is the reason that I am opposing this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Okay, returning back to Standing Committee Report 993, 994. Representative Garcia.

Reservations.

So order. Representative Amato.

Reservations.

So ordered. Representative Matsumoto.

Reservations.

So ordered. Representative Gedeon.

Same request.

So ordered. Representative Cochran.

No vote.

So ordered. Representative Alcos.

Reservations.

So ordered. Representative Reyes Oda.

With reservations.

So ordered. Representative Muraoka.

Reservations.

So ordered. Representative Shimizu.